By Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.
The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.
We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.
Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.
So, what does Mormonism reject? The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations. Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity.
The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology. The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.
Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.
Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus. These doctrines are understood by Christians to be rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time. As one leading figure in the early church explained, the true faith is recognized and affirmed everywhere, always, and by all (Vincent of Lérins defined the orthodox tradition as those truths affirmed “ubique, semper, ab omnibus”).
The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects.
Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.
Richard John Neuhaus, a leading Roman Catholic theologian, helpfully reminds us that “Christian” is a word that “is not honorific but descriptive.” Christians do respect the Mormon affirmation of the family and the zeal of Mormon youth in their own missionary work. Christians must affirm religious liberty and the right of Mormons to practice and share their faith.
Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.

posted June 28, 2007 at 8:25 pm
And many Christians are not Christians by their “fuits”. Though they tithe faithfully and attend church regularly and follow all sorts of rules and regulations, like Jesus said “I know you not” because it is not of their heart!
posted June 28, 2007 at 8:48 pm
i think morman are Christian, even if they do not fully agree with so call tradtional Christian. Jesus is Lord to them and the rest of Christians.
posted June 28, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Danny, has any mormon ever told you that Jesus was their Lord? That is totally against their doctrine, I grew up a mormon, and at 32, I found out who Jesus really was and is, but I didn’t learn that in a mormon church, I found that truth in God’s Word. According to everything I was taught by the mormons, Jesus was a great teacher, period, He was not the Son of God, the Savior of Mankind, the One Who reconciled sinful man to the Heavenly Father. Without professing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, one cannot be a Christian. We don’t get to “think” someone is a Christian, we have to go to the Word of God and see what God has to say about who is and who isn’t a Christian, our opinion is not important, only God’s.
I know many mormons, they are devoted to the church and to Joseph Smith, they are good folks, they love family, they take care of their people, but, they fall short of the truth, that Jesus was God, who came to earth to live as a man so that He could reconile manking to Father God, the Bible is clear that Jesus chose to lay aside His deity to do so, but He took that deity back when He ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.
In answer to the question “Who Gets to Define “Christian”? The only One Who can do that, is God the Father, and He made it pretty clear in His Word.
My goal in responding to this, is to instruct, not to offend. But God clearly says there is no gray, only black, only white, His way,leads to eternal life, all other ways, … do not.
posted June 28, 2007 at 9:46 pm
All I’ve ever asked is that Mormons demonstrate, by looking at traditional Christian doctrine, how they (Mormons) differ. Mormons claim to be “restored”. Explain clearly, point by point how this restored doctrine differs from traditional Christian doctrine.
posted June 28, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Sheesh~ what an interesting collection of comments however I would ask this of Dr. Mohler: the early church councils came up with two creeds which were meant to define just who/what God is. Most people, in the liturgical churches, are familiar with the Nicene Creed. In the days before Vatican 2 the other creed, the Athanasian Creed, was read on Trinity Sunday. Do you really believe what these two creeds profess? Do you even believe what they profess? Can you even begin to explain to me or the average layman what they are teaching?
No, I didn’t think so.
By the way “Joie” how the hell does God “lay aside His deity to do so, but He took that deity back”?
posted June 28, 2007 at 10:48 pm
The only One Who can do that, is God the Father, and He made it pretty clear in His Word.
Who decided what is God’s Word?
posted June 28, 2007 at 11:11 pm
One either accepts what Yeshua said about Himself or one doesn’t. Yeshua was either telling the truth or He was a liar and/or a madman. So if one reads and studies the bible one will be able to decide for themselves whether a group calling themselves Christian really are Christian. They will be able to decide for themselves based on the Word if a group believes in His word and the foundational principles he laid down for Christianity or not. I read, I study, Mormons (like Jehovah Witness’–who use the name Jehovah in error by the way) are not Christians–they only use the name to legitamatize themselves.
But don’t take my word for it or be offended. Read and study for yourselves so that you are not decieved.
Godspeed to all!
posted June 28, 2007 at 11:19 pm
But Levia, who decides what the “Word” is?
posted June 28, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Oh my Goodness, First, It is important to note, We need to have FACTS before we go out to teach. So, I suppose most of these opinions online are just that..Opinions..I am a Mormom. Otherwise known as a Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Jesus Christ is our Saviour, Our Brother, the Son of God. He is the center of our lives. We believe in Him, We honor Him, We worship Him! He is the Saviour!!
I cannot say that enough. I am born, bred, and personally converted to that fact. My family lines run deep in this Gospel. We believe in The Bible, and add our personal Witness of another Testament of Jesus Christ. Read the Book, use the passage in Moroni, truly Pray to Our Heavenly Father, and I know you will find that We BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST! Please, learn. It is important. We believe all Men have the right to worship, how, where and what they may..We love the Saviour.
May you learn about the truth of our Testimonies about Christ.
posted June 29, 2007 at 12:10 am
Like Mia, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Mormons is a nickname that was given to members of the church, because of our belief in the Book of Mormon being the word of God, along with the Bible.
I would just like to add my testimony that we are indeed Christians. Jesus is our Savior and great example. We all strive to live as He did, and show true charity for all mankind. We follow His teachings in all that we do.
If you read this and still don’t agree that we are Christians, I encourage you to learn more about our faith. Go to http://www.lds.org for more information, if you like to learn online. You can also request to have missionaries visit your home to find out even more.
posted June 29, 2007 at 2:56 am
Joie I was not raise Mormon, i have read there book and I am tradtional Christian. If they use Holy biblei it state Jesus is Lord and Savior. if they do not then possble they are not christian. I respect there right to different view and harm no one. Mormans have lovely families and one can not mock that. The rest of us come from so strange families sometimes. I know i did and it always be part of me.
posted June 29, 2007 at 3:19 am
I find it amusing that the Baptists, themselves, were once considered heretics, and therefore, not true Christians.
In fact, a mere five centuries ago, to be a Christian, you had to be a Catholic, which is one reason Western Europe invaded Eastern Europe during the Crusades – to destroy the Greek Orthodox Church, which Catholics considered un-Christian.
In the five centuries since Martin Luther risked his life by opposing the Catholicism of his day – which he considered un-Christian – Protestants and Catholics have blooded the streets over who was really a Christian.
It has continued in Northern Ireland.
Much of the early history of America is one of people seeking religious freedom, not from Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or Jews, but from other Christians who didn’t think their form of Christianity was “Christian enough.”
Which is something the Mormons only know too well. Their kind were driven from state to state, forcing them to leave behind homes and barns, and to bury husbands, wives, sons and daughters on the icy prairie.
It’s a rough and ugly tale, this story of American Christianity. Nor are the Mormons an exception to the lists of brutalities, as evidenced by the horrific hysteria of Mountain Meadows, when Mormons ambushed a wagon train moving through southern Utah – in large part because it contained “apostates” from Missouri.
It’s hard to imagine that Jesus of Nazareth, a figure who gave his life for the sake of peace and reconciliation, could have inspired so many chapters of violence at the hands of people who were so convinced that they were the “true Christians.”
One day, Baptists everywhere will look back at this moment and cringe, the way people today look at those early reactions to human rights – or rock and roll.
Ironically, Christianity suffered a diaspora half a century before the famous Jewish diaspora at the hands of the Romans. What most likely caused it was not so much this affinity for Jesus as the idea that these Christians were letting Gentiles into their synagogue – and on an equal footing with Jews.
Christianity, itself, is built on a willingness to boldly try new things – even if it that would mean putting its headquarters in the city of the very empire that killed Jesus and destroyed the Jewish temple. Every time Christianity redefines itself, somebody ends up screaming, “You people aren’t real Christians!”
posted June 29, 2007 at 3:30 am
The name of the religion is “The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints.” Explain to me how that is not Christian?
Have you read the Book of Mormon, which is a confirming witness to the Holy Bible and another testament of Jesus Christ? This is the kind of “non-Christian” material it contains:
“And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” (2 Nephi 25: 26)
There is not a more Christian organization than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Who is Dr. Albert Mohler that he has the authority to exclude people from taking the name of Jesus Christ and accepting Him as their Savior and Redeemer?
posted June 29, 2007 at 4:23 am
You guys are being pethedic. Who really cares if they’re Christian or not they’re not hurting you. I’ve been to a Mormom church and they talk about Jesus Christ all the time. It seems like in almost every sentence they’re saying it. And their prayers go Dear Heavenly Father…In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen or summin along those lines.
And don’t even start with them using the Christian bible as a crutch to prove their Christianity. Was it not the Christians that took the Torah from the Jews and then claimed that Jesus bleed for our sins which made most of the laws in the Torah null and void. So why the hell would you teach something that you don’t believe in and then Christians don’t even decipher the Torah correctly.
It seems like no one can be happy without trying to make themselves feel superior in their religion.
posted June 29, 2007 at 8:48 am
Jesus Himself said that many would come in His name and not be a follower.
There are lots of stories of people that claim to be Christian but when compared to what the Apostles wrote on what it is to be a Christian and what they quoted Jesus as saying, the people in error were proven to be just that.
Mormons are not Christians.
Not according to the Christians that existed before they did. Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James, Luke and the other contributors to the New Testament writings stand irrevoclably against people that present religions as askewed as Mormonism.
Joseph Smith was a bad historian. And what further exacerbates his heresy and problems is that the angels or gods visiting Smith were wrong as well.
Paul mentions angles like that.
Mormons and/or enyone else can use the words” Jesus Christ” and if you’ll notice, Jesus said that many false teachers and prohets would.
God does not live on a planet near a star called Kolob. Smith said he does.
Jesus is not the spiritual brother of Satan. Smith said he was.
In Doctrines and covenats 132 (a Mormon holy book as important as the Bible) Smith says that men must have multiple wives in heaven. Mormonism teaches eternal marriage.
Jesus said we are not married in heaven.
Upon examination; the “Test all things” admonishment of the New Testament, Mormons that follow Joseph Smith teachings are not Christians.
Not according “just” to me, but also the Christians that wrote and compiled the New Testament letters and reports.
It would be far more honest, for those wishing to follow the teachings of Joseph Smith to rename their belief system something else.
I would suggest Moroniism.
That is truly what it is.
Interesting to note is, that Moroni is an angel with another Gospel. No one following Jospeh Smith’s heresy can say they were not warned IN writing.
posted June 29, 2007 at 8:51 am
By the way . . .,
Two wrongs can never make a right according to Christ Jesus and those that wrote the New Testament.
Repenting is the only way to start following “The Faith delivered only once to the Saints.”
And the scripture is NOT talking about Mormonism.
posted June 29, 2007 at 12:00 pm
This is not about Mormons being Christian; its about trying not to step on toes.
posted June 29, 2007 at 12:21 pm
It’s amazing how many people know so much about religion but they can’t spell “pathetic” while name-calling. After reading through the mush I think Bill Kilpatrick said it best. Mormons are Christians. Period. They have “discovered” an additional book and believe in an additional savior- so what? Who can prove them wrong? And if they are wrong, will God even care that they are “ultra” devoted christians! Mormon families are some of the most well-educated, welcoming, devotional, and peace-keeping families in this country. Our presidency would be served well by this type of structure and dedication. The prejudiced media is only playing Devil’s advocate (literally) in nit-picking this religion. Gotta start finding something wrong with everyone- stir up that good ‘ol political pot!
posted June 29, 2007 at 12:32 pm
When considering whether someone is a Christian or not, does it matter which “Christ” the person is following?
For example if I were to say that to me Christ is a 3 foot midget woman who lives in my basement and I follow her with all my heart… would I be considered a “Christian”?
The reason I ask is because the Christ from Mormonism varies greatly from the Christ of historic Christian orthodoxy.
The Christ of the biblical Christianity is not only the Son of God, He is also God the Son. The Bible says that Jesus is the Creator of the universe.
“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” John 1:3
“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Collosians 1:16-17
This means that Christ created everything including the devil and hell.
On the other hand, Mormonism teaches that Christ is the brother of the devil.
Two completely different Christs.
Again I ask, when considering whether someone is a Christian or not, does it matter which “Christ” the person is following?
posted June 29, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Mormon baptisms are not recognized as valid by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, most Lutherans, all (Eastern) Orthodox, United Methodists, and others. The Episcopalian rules (my own tradition) require that Mormons be “baptized,” not “received” nor even “conditionally” baptized. That sort of gives one a clue …..
posted June 29, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Thank (G-d?) for secularism and irony. With the kind of disrespect and inconsistent behaviors (read: Not very Christlike) comments and judgments one group of so-called Christians hurls at another, do not wonder that people will turn their backs on the likes of that and seek their source of peace and truths through venues other than supposed “Christian” churches. If Christians can’t even agree on their supposed truths, how is a non-Christian to take it as true? How is any of this infighting to be construed other than as completely antethetical to Christ in its unbrotherly, intolerant, unAmerican and unChristian aspects?
posted June 29, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“The Christ of the biblical Christianity is not only the Son of God, He is also God the Son.”
Amen, AC.
posted June 29, 2007 at 3:41 pm
if you really want true Christianity contrasted with Mormon teachings (which are documented straight out of official LDS Church documents) then go to http://www.aomin.org. This is the website of Alpha and Omega ministries and Dr. James R. White. They have done extensive research on the LDS church and contrasted it with the Bible and traditional Christianity.
You can also do a google search and find James R. White’s book “Letters to a Mormon Elder” for free online.
Mormonism is not Christianity. If you take the definition of Christianity from the Bible then Mormonism is in direct contrast and the only way you can define Mormonism as Christian is by re-defining Christian terms.
Examples would include:
Christian: Jesus is the only begotten son.
Mormon: Jesus is the only begotten son in the flesh.
Christian: There is one true God. Period.
Mormon: There is one true God, of this planet.
When you can only fit your religion into Christianity by adding caveats or redefining terms, then you are not Christian.
posted June 29, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Jude 3 “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Mormonism is not the faith which was once delivered unto the saints! Paul, Peter, John and all the other saints before Joseph Smith arrived on the scene never preached the gospel of Moroni, I have never heard a Mormon say that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh! John 1:1-14
I hear a lot of Mormons say Jesus is our Saviour, our Brother, the Son of God, our Friend, but do they ever say what Thomas said in John 20:28 “Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”" Another verse I have never heard a Mormon quote is 2 Corinthians 5:19 “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” What is the word of reconciliation that the Mormons teach? I believe it to be some form of works and not Grace alone which is the faith once delivered.
Folks that think just becuase they are very commited to what they believe doesn’t mean that what they believe is true. Romans 10:2 “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” I know some will not like the scriptures I quoted but it’s the Bible are you going to hate it?
posted June 29, 2007 at 4:00 pm
If you believe what this video teaches then you are a Mormon and not a Christian!
posted June 29, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Oops here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7v_V8qSIIo
posted June 29, 2007 at 5:15 pm
The comments from the evangelicals on this sight would just be silly if it weren’t for the number of people who believe as they do! As a recovering “moderate” southern baptist, I would suggest that true Christianity is to be modeled after the faith of Jesus and not a faith in Jesus. For all who struggle with living the Way – may I suggest a living faith for our time – the UCC. Remember, as Gracie Allen said, “never place a period where God has place a comma”. God is still speaking and cares more for the way we live our lives than how we feel about ancient creeds.
posted June 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm
If a Moslem says they are a Christian, it must be so. If an atheist says they are a Christian it must be so. I mean who are were to argue with and judge people. If someone claims the name Christian, let them have it. The word has become meaningless in our current globalization of language. Today words have form, no substance, for substance requires absolute categories, and when it comes to what people claim to be, good Lord, who are we denial someone that they are not what they claim to be.
Personally, if I call for the plumber, and the garbage man shows up claiming to be the plumber, I will not let him in my house to fix the plumbing (if you know what I mean).
Mildbanter
posted June 29, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Joie writes: “According to everything I was taught by the mormons, Jesus was a great teacher, period, He was not the Son of God, the Savior of Mankind, the One Who reconciled sinful man to the Heavenly Father.”
Curious. I was born into a Mormon family, and remain a faithful member of that Church. I was taught as a child that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind, and though I don’t recall use of the term “reconciled,” I was taught that he is our advocate and mediator with the Father, and the only one by whom salvation comes. I was always taught that to say Christ was just “a great teacher” was false. My adult experience in the Church has been entirely consistent with that early teaching. Joie or I seem to have been raised in very different churches….
posted June 29, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Mormonism is not Christian and doesn’t follow what Jesus left to the Holy Apostles after His ascension into the Father’s right hand.
One avenue that Mormonism foundation “chips” is Joseph Smith’s first revelation at age 15. If this revelation is correct–it won’t contradict the Bible or the BOM. If this revelation is wrong–it must be rejected as false, for contradicting the Bible or the BOM.
Teaching that Christianity is false, is completely wrong–there’s no foundation to stand upon for the Mormon. Mormonism has or can never prove there was a universal apostasy that occured in early Christianity–and will never. No apostasy, no restoration; no restoration, no Joseph Smith; no Joseph Smith, no LDS, is that simple. The Bible clearly teaches in Galatians chapter 1, that if an angel or man brings another gospel(other than what Jesus Christ has done on the cross) let him be accursed. Joseph claims to have seen an “angel”. Teaching pre-Mormons and post-Mormons, that Joseph Smith in fact received a revelation from two Personages: Jesus and God on 1820, is contrary to many verses in the Bible and misleading. What many Mormons don’t know, is that there were about six different versions of Smith’s revelations which the LDS and FLDS has censored.
Satan changes himself into an angel of light and he deceives the simple minded indiviual–in this case, Mormons have gotten deceived.Practically what Smith seen, was not from God–and if its not from God–its from Satan. Over 100 revelations that Smith had received–contradict the Bible, blasphemy God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Whenever somthing or someone contradicts what God has already said in the Bible, is not from God. This a test to determine whether a prophet is from God or not: If a person claims to be an ordained prophet of God, then what comes forth from the mouth of the prophet will come into agreement with the Word of God–otherwise he is false and not to be followed. Reading from 1820′s revelation of Joseph Smith– he fails this test.
posted June 29, 2007 at 8:30 pm
If a person claims to be an ordained prophet of God, then what comes forth from the mouth of the prophet will come into agreement with the Word of God
And whom is defining this “Word of God” taht a prophets statements must agree with? As an example we’ll randomly pick the Mormons, ergo the thier prophet is correct and POC is now apostate? Is that fare?
Nope. So whom should define this “Word of God” then?
otherwise he is false and not to be followed. Reading from 1820′s revelation of Joseph Smith– he fails this test
From a singular point of view that is true, but only such.
Regardless of Joe Smith, Mormons seem to truely take Jesus as Lord and Savior, are there other “hoops” they must jump through like trained circus animals? They love God and love thier fellow man, if anyone asks more of them then thier we have the beginings of non-chrisitanity…
posted June 29, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Jesus is God.
posted June 29, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I too was raised in the Mormon church. I’m staggered by Joie’s claims that Mormonism claims Christ was only a great teacher. I don’t know what Joie was doing during church meetings, but she(?) couldn’t have been paying attention.
For the record, for any practising Mormons, Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and Redeemer (not just of this planet, as someone else claimed Mormons say, but of the universe), the one by whose merits we are saved. We worship Him, depend on Him, strive to live like Him, and weekly show ourselves willing to take His name on ourselves as we renew our baptismal covenants through the sacrament. The Book of Mormon teaches clearly about the Saviour’s atonement, the essential need for it. Repentance and forgiveness come to us through the grace of Jesus Christ.
posted June 29, 2007 at 9:38 pm
In the real scriptures we were warned of false prophets and the lies that they will try to spread.
I’m sorry that many are lost due to one mans delusional, self serving pseudo-gospel.
It is rather interesting that some would ridicule evangelicals on their firm stance behind the words of Christ. Did he not himself say “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man may go to the father except through me.”
Furthermore, we know, from the old testament that Satan, aka Lucifer, aka Beelzebub was one of the rather more powerful angels who staged a rebellion. I seriously would question anybody who would relate him to God. Smith did just that by linking Christ to Satan.
Heck, Jesus himself said that a saint in heaven would be above the angels, making us greater than Lucifer, Michael, Gabriel, but nowhere near to the level of Christ who sits at the right hand of God.
posted June 29, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I appreciate your comments, Dr Mohler. Just because someone calls themselves ‘Christian’ doesn’t mean that they are.
I read Mr. Card’s comments and was disappointed that he didn’t address more of your doctrinal questions. He seemed to spend most of his time appealing to human wisdom and emotion and never addressed doctrine.
The truth of the Bible is very important and we need to continue to defend it whenever it is attacked (even by those who claim to believe.)
posted June 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is anything more than another human being. He is not God. This is where they differ from Christians.
posted June 29, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Hi,
Any teaching that Jesus Christ is not the Eternal Son of God is not Christian. The bible, by the Holy Spirit not private interpretation, is God’s Word. Thank you for reading.
posted June 29, 2007 at 10:30 pm
While I am not a Mormon myself my brother converted and his wife is one. With them I have attended many Sunday services and have had many fruitful talks with several other Mormons and missionaries. All of them have affirmed that Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God and through His death on the cross the Savior of this world. True they do not agree on the Trinity but then in my discussions with many more Mainstream Christians I have found that they either do not even pretend to comprehend the Trinity and act as if there were three totally separate entities involved while paying lip serevice to the concept or they do not agree with it at all.
Foir what it is worth in my limited experience I would call Mormons Christian though certainly not orthodox but then neither were the Gnostics or the Cathars and their disagreements were silenced by force not reasoned debate or revelation.
posted June 29, 2007 at 11:10 pm
If a person claims to be an ordained prophet of God, then what comes forth from the mouth of the prophet will come into agreement with the Word of God
And whom is defining this “Word of God” that a prophets statements must agree with?
*Read Deut 18:22–Joseph Smith is false.
As an example we’ll randomly pick the Mormons, ergo the their prophet is correct and POC is now apostate? Is that fair?
Nope. So whom should define this “Word of God” then?
*The Word of God is the Word of God and not the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Abraham, as millions of Mormons assume it is. There is not another testament of Jesus Christ–there are only two: The Old Testament and New Testament–there’s no more testaments. God has given mankind the Bible–His final revelation of Himself to mankind–His love letter. This question is: How do Mormons know its from God what LDS has been teaching and not from Satan? By “burning in your bosom”? Jeremiah 17:5 tells us the heart is evil and Proverbs says that if we trust in our own heart we are a fool.
otherwise he is false and not to be followed. Reading from 1820′s revelation of Joseph Smith– he fails this test
From a singular point of view that is true, but only such.
Regardless of Joesph Smith, Mormons seem to truely take Jesus as Lord and Savior, are there other “hoops” they must jump through like trained circus animals?
*I disgree. Mormons rely upon LDS and countless of revelations that come from falliable men inside LDS. They haven’t placed their faith upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation but upon LDS, Smith, apostles, prophets and the president. Mormons follow the LDS God, Jesus Christ and spirit–not the same ones from the Bible. Mormons are taught to work for their salvation–to attain Godhood–exaltation. Such teaching is wrong. Everyone is saved by grace alone and not by works(Eph 2:8-9). Salvation by works is not taught in the Bible–Jesus has ALREADY finished the work on the cross–crying out “It is finished”.
They love God and love thier fellow man, if anyone asks more of them then their we have the beginings of non-chrisitanity…
*They profess they love God and their fellow men, but that still doesn’t prove anything. Every time a Mormon comes to my door, I tell them my testimony. When I’m done they get a concern look on their faces. I ask them if they’re a Christian. Then if they say yes, I ask them to explain to why they are Christian. They will tell me that they got baptized into Mormonism. I ask them: Are you 100% sure that if you were to die today(God forbid) will God allow you into His pearly gates of Heaven? They’re speechless! And if a Mormon tells me something that denies, opposes and contradicts the Bible; I will know they are lost in their sins and need to receive Jesus Christ into their heart.
posted June 29, 2007 at 11:11 pm
the definition of christian is anyone who believes in christ as the son of god. mormons are most definantly christians. has anyone even bothered to look at the full name of the mormon church? “the church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints”, lets break that down, the church of JESUS CHRIST (does it get any more clear than that?), so they believe in christ. of latter day saints, essentially those trying to follow the example and teachings of christ in these days. dr Mohler is indeed making an attempt to change the definition of christian. popular belief doesnt make truth. you can convince a class of 30 toddlers that a cat is indeed a dog, but that doesnt make it the true definition. dr mohler can convince X number of people that christian is defined by TRADITIONAL christian orthodoxy, that doesnt make it true. if you want to know if mormons are christians, ASK A MORMON!! you dont ask a catholic to teach you the beliefs of the bhuddist religion, cause he doesnt know!!!
posted June 29, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“joie” – i dont know what mormon church you attended because i have been mormon all my life and it has been made VERY clear that jesus IS the VERY SON of god and that he did indeed suffer and die for the suns of ALL mankind. you either werent paying attention in church or it wasnt a mormon church. you could ask any 5 yr old member of our church and they would tell you that jesus christ is indeed the son of god and redeemer of the world.
posted June 29, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Obama’s United Church of Christ is NOT CHRISTIAN EITHER with their homosexual affirming selves. And listen to the heathen Episcopian telling someone who IS and IS NOT a Christian.
IF Gays are Christian the world is coming to an End!
Good is BAD and BAD IS GOOOOOOODDDDDDD!!!!!!!
I’m not Mormon. But I”M NO FOOL EITHER!
Bash one religion only to kiss the devil still!
posted June 29, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Thank you for the discussion, Dr. Mohler.
And Orson. Thank you.
Todd
http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com
posted June 30, 2007 at 1:36 am
Forgive me if this has already been said or if this has nothing to do with the current topic of conversation. I admit I didn’t really read all of them. I just wanted to offer a thought, and I really intend my conclusion for Dr. Mohler and Mr. Card more than anything (even though it seems unlikely they will read all the responses).
The first time that the word ‘Christian’ appears in the Bible is in The Acts of the Apostles. It is stated that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Later in Acts, Agrippa asks Paul if he would have him become a Christian too. The only other instance of the word I found was in Peter’s 1st Epistle where Peter seems to use it as a general reference to believers.
I’ve been told that the word had it’s origin as a pejorative for Christians in the 1st century. Like many such terms, it became accepted as a label. So, for the most part, it seems to me that the term was applied by 1st century Greeks to those who followed Christ. Words evolve in their meaning over time though. Thus, the question, “Are Mormons Christians?” seems poorly stated. Both Dr. Mohler and Orson Card are right because they both give a definition for the word and show why the word applies to them. In the historic, orthodox sense, Mormons are clearly not Christians. But in the sense that a Christian is simply a person who believes in the historic Jesus and tries to do what he taught, than Mormons are Christians, according to that definition (I’ve heard a Muslim state that he is a Christian before).
So I think the question that is being asked doesn’t actually get at the heart of the desired answers and opinions. It seems to me that many protestant/Catholic/orthodox Christians would like to know what Mormons actually believe and if Christians have fellowship with them. What would be more matter-of-fact, perhaps, is to ask if Mormon’s believe the gospel, and if so, what do they say that gospel is. Definitions are needed on both sides. Card criticized the unnamed Anglican theologian for using incomprehensible theological jargon, but he himself makes statements about Christ saving the world and his grace covering the guilt of our sins. What exactly does he mean? Salvation from what? What kinds of sins does Christ’s “grace” cover? How much sin can one commit? What does one have to do/believe/say/etc. in order to receive this ambiguous salvation and grace?
I shouldn’t be one sided simply because I understand most the words that Dr. Mohler will use, though. Definitions are necessary on both sides. Concise, yet precise understandings of meanings because as Card stated, many Christians (using Mohler’s definition) without theological training struggle to find difference in central tenets of belief. I don’t think that this is the result of laymen Christians being closer to Mormonism (proof for Card that it is true?). I think this is the result of ambiguity. Because even a Christian without extensive training, after talking with a Mormon, will likely conclude that something is off, even if he does not know what.
So, with all that said. Concise and precise definitions and explanations please! Don’t simply through around language and jargon.
posted June 30, 2007 at 2:53 am
Quick question to all the experts here:
My Jesus is Black. Am I still Christian?
posted June 30, 2007 at 3:00 am
Joie,
You say that you were mormon at one timet and that mormon doctrine does not teach the Jesus Christ is the one of God and the Savior of the world? You are either lying about once being a mormon or you had your eyes and ears closed and did not understand anything of mormon doctrine.
I have NEVER met a mormon who did not believe that Jesus Christ is the the Savior of the world. Mormon doctrine is clear on that point. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and no one can be saved, go to heaven etc except through him.
You are correct that God is the one who will decide whether we are Christian or not. I believe he will make that judgment based on our efforts to follow Jesus Christ. I think that was part of Mr. Card’s point. People can have very large disagreements about doctrine, in the end, it is silly for people to try and tell someone they aren’t Christian when they are trying to follow Jesus Christ – even if their ideas are incorrect.
posted June 30, 2007 at 4:11 am
bottom line:
How many gods are there in ALL existence, according to orthodox Mormon doctrine?
Countless. Is this not correct?
How many gods are there in ALL existence, according to orthodox Christianity?
One.
For me, this is the end of this debate.
posted June 30, 2007 at 4:48 am
“Joie” (June 28 @ 9.34) is not and never has been a Mormon.
posted June 30, 2007 at 4:51 am
Well,all I can say (as Jesus tought): a new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. That should be the Christian credo. I am the product of Huguenots, who had to flee France in order to escape persecutions(as severe as the holocaust,or almost) It has made our family very tolerant of other belief systems. We still can opt for our truth, which all of us can glean from the bible, and is accessible in most parts of the Western world to all who can read. Why all the hatred and persecutions took place, I do not know. A cousin of mine who had been raised a Mormon, by his formerly Lutheran nother, who received help from the generosity of Mormons to raise her children, asked me, whether I believed he was a Christian, and I told him “yes”. I knew that God was the judge of his heart, and it was not up to me to judge him. There are two sides to Christianity: one is dogma, the other is faith. I like to think that faith overules dogma.
posted June 30, 2007 at 4:55 am
“Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is anything more than another human being. He is not God. This is where they differ from Christians.”
A betrayal of utter ignorance concerning MOrmon belief. Read ANY of our literature, esp. the BOM (the references are abundant–1 Ne. 19, 2 Ne. 2, 2 Ne. 25, Jacob 4, Mosiah 3-5, Mosiah 14-16, Alma 36-38, Hel. 5:12, and the list goes on WELL BEYOND what can be cited here) Hundreds of verses litearlly testify of Christ’s divinity. I challenge you to find a single verse in our texts that say otherwise. Bottom line: you cannot and one of these days, people will need to get educated or get out of town in their dialogues on Mormonism.
posted June 30, 2007 at 10:12 am
Will (June 30) made a great point. Definitions are important. We live in an age where language is being torn apart by deconstructionism (read post-modernism). Words no longer mean anything and neither does dialogue if there is no exact definition behind a word. The same is true for confessions (read doctrines). If we do not have clearly laid-out definitions for what we believe, things begin to unravel. Most Christian churches, by any definition, are unraveling precisely because we have shifted away from doctrine and toward something else; namely an enculturated and emotional humanism.
Each person here feels that their opinion matters and is what others SHOULD believe. Why do we feel this way? Dr. Mohler may not have received his doctorate in Mormon Studies or Comparitive Religions, but he is one of the most intelligent and driven people I know. I have never met a person who reads as much or interacts as fairly as he does. He and I do not always end up in agreement on every topic, but he is far more qualified to speak on Mormonism than many Mormons may be.
Nobody here feels that Mormons do not really believe in their version of Christ, and nobody here is really saying that Mitt Romney should not run for or even become President of the United States. That is peripheral. Here we must deal with Mormonism as Christianity. I have interacted with Mormons, both in their church setting and through missionaries. What I have found interesting is there is has been a shift in how Mormons have desired to be seen in the surrounding community. There was a point when Mormons were satisfied with being called just that, Mormon. They did not seek to be identified with mainstream Christianity. Recently (I noticed the shift about 12 years ago), they started to pointedly “prefer” to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and started seeking to be considered mainstream. Now they call themselves Christian. The missionaries I have dealt with seek to minimize differences. They use the Bible and they talk about Greek, until you show evidence of knowledge of the Bible and of Greek, at which point the tactics change to the Book of Mormon. They never speak of the changes their doctrines have undergone. They never bring up comparing the Bible to their other Testament. Rather they stress personal experience and the “burning in the bosom.” I am not trying to be insulting here, but am trying to show that the basis for LDS missionary work is emotional appeal and difference minimization. Doctrines take a back seat.
Let us remove the fog and look at the differences. Others here have accurately, even if not expertly, portrayed Joseph Smith’s revelations as separate from what is “allowable” as presented by Scripture. What has not been revealed was Joseph Smith’s involvement in Occultic practices and religious dabblings which got him arrested before he ever claimed to have received news of the golden plates. He had a suspect history which makes his claims suspect. Beyond that, we have no evidence for his claims (no special reading glasses, no golden plates with Egyptian hieroglyphs). His claims controverted the Biblical Scriptures. The beginnings of Mormonism far more resemble that of Scientology than that of Christianity in Israel/Asia Minor/Rome. Also, while Mormons claim to follow Christ, they deny the trinity, which places them in the same sort of heresy as the Arians and Sabellians. To them, Christ may be Savior, but savior from what, and to what, and why? Very quickly commonality disappears and Mormonism is left naked.
I do not dislike Mormons, but if we are to get anywhere, the whole truth of what they believe must be revealed. Who is Satan and what is his function? Who is God and what makes him “God?” What is his nature and what is his past, present, and future role? What can a faithful Mormon expect upon death? What are the rewards of faithfulness? Where do they go? What was the official stance of the Church of LDS on other races besides whites until recently, and what happened to black people when they died? Paul boldly spoke of his faith and the particulars and practicalities of that faith unashamedly and in public. Let the Mormons do the same. Let their beliefs be seen plainly and then we will talk of commonality.
Laslty, who gets to define what a Christian is? That is a very good question that depends largely on who you ask. We must examine what goal is held in mind by the questioner and what goal is held by the questioned. I would suggest that a definition that preserves traditional understanding is generally the best, and that if another definition is being considered, it should be clearly portrayed and a reason should be given for the shift. I believe this is the method being employed by Dr. Mohler. He stays with traditional understandings of what makes a Christian; that is, doctrinal committment, and personal devotion (read fruit) to those doctines. Mormons claim to have the latter, but if the former is not there, how can the latter be completely correct? If we seek a different definition for Christianity, what definition should we seek and why the change? If we are to follow the suggestions of some of the posters here, and allow any who claim to be or who want to be Christians to be so, without any demands upon them, how far does this stretch? How far does Christianity stretch before it rips apart (although this may be the goal all along). Are Buddhists, Muslims, Marxists, and Pagans Christians? Paul would vehemently say no. Peter, James, Silas, and Barnabus would say no (Peter and James had trouble initially accepting Gentile converts, while Silas and Barnabus accompanied Paul on missionary journeys, signifying a difference of belief). Traditional definitions and understandings must not be thrown away for the sake of “community,” or “updating.” If a definition is changed, it must be with good reason.
Just another opinion to consider.
posted June 30, 2007 at 10:32 am
The nature of Mohler’s argument seems to me inconsistent with wider Baptist beliefs about authority and the nature of the church. In a sense, he is stating that creeds devised and accepted by church councils in the 4th and 5th centuries define christianity. This seems inconsistent, to me, with more general Baptist claims of authority, and thus inherently contradictory to their apparent ability to define Baptists as christians. To wit–
(1) Nicea, etc., were approved by a church council called by a Roman emperor and under the authority of an ancient pope and patriarchs. If they accept their authority to speak as such and to define christianity, why do they not accept their successors’ (the popes and patriarchs, obviously) authority to do so? By the fourth century there is transparency in succession, major doctrines of succession had been in place, and central concepts of authority still central to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy were in order. So it seems to me entirely contradictory to accept the authority of their creed but not their authority on other issues.
(2) The Nicene creed, particularly, is organically rooted in hellenized understandings of God–which go far beyond the biblical statements on the nature of God. Yet, my understanding of Baptist theology is that it was defined solely in terms of Biblical teaching. Thus is it not the case that accepting the nicene creed as an authoritative definition of christianity itself violates this central claim of Baptist teachings?
posted June 30, 2007 at 11:18 am
Greetings in Christ to everyone
I am an Indian by origin and had been born and brought up in multiculture and faith. I descend from hindu faith. I appreciate that we all debated, argued in favour or against here about mormonism. Its necessary to judge what we believe and what we not and what we should, depends on the choice we make to believe. But before making any choice we must know that we can make choices and not the consequences eg. ‘Wage of Sin is Death’. This is evident from the (OT)Gospel in the first book, Geneisis. Although God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of that particular tree “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” but gave freedom to them to choose whether to eat it or not to eat them. And that was the opportunity the Devil was looking for to interfere and deceive with his craftiness to make mankind commit sin in the eyes of God, the loving father.It twisted God’s warning to Eve and convinced her to eat it. She could have reconsidered what God exactly said and judged on God’s powerful words (You will surely die if you eat the fruit of that tree) and fred herself from the Devil’s deceiving words and choose not to eat. She chose to eat it and the consequence of what is the death she faced. As the decendent of the first couple we all face that consequence today. So I believe with the knowledge of God’s word I have been able to clarrify the the ‘choice and consequence. But again Holy scripture says that God is merciful and he loved the world (Us)so much that He gave his only begotten son, Jesus (not anyone else–who is as holy as Jesus and God is) for the salvation and eternal life.
Similarly concerning faith in true God and teachings, I think we must be very careful to choose because when a wrong choice is made the painful and dreadful consequences are inevitable that we are bound face. The Scripture (both Old and The New Testaments)has been always warning us to Be on our guard that there are many false prophets who profess false teaching like Gnostic teachers and Gnosticism during early years of the foundation of Christian churches in the world.
If any one seeks the truth, He/she must pray and seek to God. I am more than sure that He would show a way as He did in my life. I never used to read the Bible before although I was born in a christian family which branched out from hindu origin. The more I read the Bible, more I enrich my wisdom from God’s word. When Some areas I don’t understand, I pray and seek God’s blessings to give me wisdom to open the true interpretation of his words. And I am happy to say that I am not a blind christian rather a christian with the experience of God’s presence in my life.
Concerning the ‘mormonism’, I have experience with them. After I came to UK. Two young people came from Canada and US to my door with a book preaching about christianity. I accepted them and called inside. We had long conversation about their faith. I questioned them as I always judge the true faith against the word of God. These two young gentlemen kept on trying to highlight in their preaching about Joseph Smith, always. No matter how much I tried to focus on Jesus, they always seemed trying subside Jesus and focus on Joseph Smith. They left me after hours of long conversation. Oneday I went to their church in Chorley, near Preston in the UK. I visited their library, sanctuary (but was not allowed to go inside unless I was a mormon. I questioned on many things but always their ushers avoided when I dug deep in our conversation. Ultimately, rather satisfying me with the answers justified in the old and New testament he left by saying “its your faith”. I said to them indeed its my faith. I judge everything on the balance against the word of God because God’s words in the scriptures are the absolute, complete and perfect weights. True Christianity never make you a blind believer. Jesus said He is the light to the world. Therefore, how a true Christian walking in the light can be blind.
Finally, as true truth seeker my opinion regarding all the faith, not only Mormonism, all opinions and philosophies regarding faith in God should be judged before making choice of any faith because consequences are attached to each choice and are sometimes dreadful as I mentioned earlier and there is no return. Scripture says,”seek and you will be given”.
How come someone be greater than God and Jesus. When scripture says regrding Jesus that nothing was created without Him. He was in the begining and the end. As John the Baptist said “He (Jesus)must increase and I must decrease”. He even told his deciples that to follow Jesus because He is the one who will baptise you with fire (Holy Spirit from God)” John was a great prophet which was even declared by Jesus. But John always with absolute humility submitted himself to Jesus. And thus said, “He must increase and I must decrease” and not even worthy to untie his shoe strap. If that is so how come one such as Mormons magnify Joseph Smith more than Jesus in their ministry. This all I am saying from my experience by meeting them. One of the biggest stumble stone for the non-believers and the false preachers is to deny craftily that Jesus is not the only begotten son of God when throughout the scripture God spoke about Jesus through his prophets and prepared His people for the coming of the Christ. Jews, his own people, had this problem to believe him and for that reason they crucified Him. If they were not blind then they accepted him as the promissed messiah from God, His own son. They were blind. So the whole truth is that Jesus is the centre of Christianity, a new covenant of God. Other than this all are false.
I am happy to learn that through many arguments against and in favour of Gods word. ‘Jesus’ the name from above is testified, becoming purer and purer to trust upon and calling doom upon them who deny Him. Some say they believe but put doubts in Him in their hearts or do not read about Him and his words in the scripture but say against Him.
Please! read Bible and seek him. He is stretching arms wide open for you to embrace and give you wisdom. You don’t need anyone to understand his words but only his blessings.
May God Bless you all in Jesus name.
Partha Sebastian
posted June 30, 2007 at 11:29 am
You have many good points Dr. Mohler that Mr. Card could not easily debunk, but to debate religion, or in this case Mormonism, is very difficult because it is hard to agree on the core points. And so, as it happened, there is really no debate in the real sense of the word, but only expert opinions or rebuttals. But I salute both of you because your points of view are very interesting, enlightening, and really enjoyable to read. You two people are one of a kind! My congratulations.
posted June 30, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Your opponent is correct—you have not read the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in that book but what Jesus also taught where he was born. However, there are some things that are made more clear in it. I am not a Mormon—I belong to the Community of Christ Church. We do believe that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by the power of God, but we never believed in polygamy, or that we can become gods, or that we will be married in heaven (and none of these things can be found in the Book of Mormon—in fact, it teaches against these things.) I consider myself a Christian who believes in God the Father and His Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. I also believe that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, brought forth by God for the benefit of the American Indian and other peoples of the Maya and Inca desendents. I am not a Mormon, but I would vote for Romney because I know something of his churches’ teaching on morality.
posted June 30, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I agree with Albert Mohler on this issue. I think that if we are to say if the Morman faith is really Christian, we have to look at how their doctrin is. To me, when I study all of the beliefs of Mormans I just can not find any real truth behind what they claim as far as them being Christian or not. I think to define a Christian you have to know what beliefs does a Christian need to have in order to really be considered a Christian.
1. Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
2. God has a triune nature.(Not a polytheistic god, but a monotheistic God).
3. Jesus Christ died on the cross for the redemption of man.
4. Can NOT believe that Jesus worked his way to Godhood from starting as man.
You can not have beliefs such as number 4 and still be considered Christian. That is simply not what The Bible teaches. For example, in John 8:58 Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I AM”. This is an interesting quote because Jesus makes a claim to deity even before time began. So I can only conclude that the thought of Jesus acheiving Godhood from being man is totally incorrect. Thanks
posted June 30, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Quick question to all the experts here:
My Jesus is Black. Am I still Christian?
*If you have repented of all your sins, believe that Jesus Christ has suffered, crucified, died and resurrect on the third day and have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior. You have been regenerated(made alive) by the Holy Spirit–you have been born again–you are a spiritual child of God(son or daughter of God)–you are a Christian.
*No pariality exists within Christianity everyone has been made in God’s image. I always tezch this important truth “God is color blind”, therefore, we also should accept everyone who is different than we are, the same way God does–God loves both Jew and Gentile(non-Jew)–He loves everyone, just the same. Jesus skin maybe did change color, because He was in the desert for forty days and forty nights. If Jesus was dark-skinned, brown or white 2,000 years ago–it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever–faith upon Him alone for our salvation–that’s what matters “we live by faith not by sight”. We live for Him, not what we see. Now if anyone bows down and worships an image of Jesus Christ, that is considered idoltary–it is a sin against God. If you believe He was black, then that’s your conviction and if a Chinese believes He was Asian, then that’s their conviction and so on. God doesn’t show favortism nor is He a respecter of persons.
Posted by: Frogman55 | June 30, 2007 2:53 AM
posted June 30, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Feelings don’t make anyone a Christian–redemption through Jesus death on the cross, will make anyone a Christian if they are willing to accept Him into their heart and life.
Religion reaches up to God; God extends His hand in Christianity.
Mormonism goes by feelings “burning in your bosom” to accept the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. Christians follow the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ to the book of Revelation and don’t go by feelings.
Living on feelings will deceive people!
Jeremiah 17:5 teaches us that we can’t trust in our own hearts–they will deceive us.
That’s another avenue I see Mormonism–not Christian.
posted June 30, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Your opponent is correct—you have not read the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in that book but what Jesus also taught where he was born. However, there are some things that are made more clear in it. I am not a Mormon—I belong to the Community of Christ Church. We do believe that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by the power of God, but we never believed in polygamy, or that we can become gods, or that we will be married in heaven (and none of these things can be found in the Book of Mormon—in fact, it teaches against these things.)
*You have to explain to us why do you think the BOM was brought forth from the power of God, otherwise, your assumptions are incorrect.
I consider myself a Christian who believes in God the Father and His Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. I also believe that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, brought forth by God for the benefit of the American Indian and other peoples of the Maya and Inca desendents. I am not a Mormon, but I would vote for Romney because I know something of his churches’ teaching on morality.
*You are correct that the Book of Mormon does contain doctrines from the Bible–that still doesn’t mean Mormonism is Christian. However, that still won’t vaildate that the BOM is the Word of God. I have the 1830 edition of the BOM and D&C from the 1800′s. I haven’t found one shred of evidience–where are the Nephite plates have been buried, have they ever been found? I ask this question to many Mormons:
The scrolls found in a cave by a shepherd boy on 1947, that put together the Bible, are on displayed in Israel. Why are the Nephite golden plates, not on display on the Hill of Cumroah today? Will there ever be found?
Can you find me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?
One elder looks at the other one–I don’t get no response!
God doesn’t contradict Himself!
posted June 30, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is anything more than another human being. He is not God. This is where they differ from Christians.”
A betrayal of utter ignorance concerning Mormon belief. Read ANY of our literature, esp. the BOM (the references are abundant–1 Ne. 19, 2 Ne. 2, 2 Ne. 25, Jacob 4, Mosiah 3-5, Mosiah 14-16, Alma 36-38, Hel. 5:12, and the list goes on WELL BEYOND what can be cited here)
*Could we say that Joseph plagarized many verses from the KJV?
*And don’t tell me he didn’t because that’s how the BOM was made, by him.
Hundreds of verses litearlly testify of Christ’s divinity. I challenge you to find a single verse in our texts that say otherwise. Bottom line: you cannot and one of these days, people will need to get educated or get out of town in their dialogues on Mormonism.
*Right, but why does LDS teach that Jesus was a god from the gods and came from the star Kolob, if the Bible teaches He is the same God FROM the OT, who came into this world, born from Mary’s womb?
posted June 30, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I would ask all my fellow Christians who are posting on this topic and Dr.Mohler himself to consider the following when asking themselves about who is and isn’t Christian and who may or may not be saved.The first is a quote from a Russian Orthodox saint St.Theophan(I myself, am not of the Russian Orthodox faith,I just think like him on this subject),the verses that follow are from the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
“You ask, will the heterodox be saved.
Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them.
You and I should not be burdened with such a concern.
Study yourself and your own sins.”
St.Theophan
For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth [struggleth],
but of God that showeth mercy” (Rom. 9:15-16)
“For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?
Do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth” (1 Cor. 5:12-13)
” First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions,
and thanks be offered on behalf of all people,
even for kings and all who are in authority,
that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life
in all godliness and dignity. Such prayer for all
is good and welcomed before God our Savior,
since he wants all people to be saved and to come
to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)
While it’s true that none of these verses are the words of Jesus,they are included in the Word Of God,written by some of his first and most inspired followers.
Just a few things to think about.
From a mere sinner,aspiring to live like a saint.
posted June 30, 2007 at 3:14 pm
quote: I have interacted with Mormons, both in their church setting and through missionaries. What I have found interesting is there is has been a shift in how Mormons have desired to be seen in the surrounding community. There was a point when Mormons were satisfied with being called just that, Mormon. They did not seek to be identified with mainstream Christianity. Recently (I noticed the shift about 12 years ago), they started to pointedly “prefer” to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and started seeking to be considered mainstream. Now they call themselves Christian.
I have seen this shift. I feel differently about it than those outside my faith do though. As a child and a youth I never thought of calling myself a christen. Not because I didn’t believe Christ was our Lord, Savior, Son of God and God, the Son. I just never felt a reason to label myself as Christian because I always considered myself as one. That’s how most of us have felt I believe.
Then we started hearing lies being spread about us. Outright lies and lies spread by those who just didn’t know better. Lies saying that we believe in Jesus as only a teacher and things such as that. I noticed in the south there was momentum going to be called a Christian by those outside my faith. When others stated we weren’t christen because of the lies we affirmed that yes, we are.
You know if you want to say we are not christen because your definition of a christen is to only believe in a trinitarian God then I am OK with you saying we are not christen.
But if the reasons you say we are not christen because YOU THINK:
1) that we think he is only a teacher
2) that we don’t call him Lord, creator or any other of the names listed in the bible
3) that we don’t believe he is the Son of God
4) you haven’t heard us quote a specific bible scripture
5) that we don’t believe in Him as Savior
6) that we hold Joseph Smith higher than God
then you have been misled. (There were quite a few things that were stated by people here that are not our beliefs, besides the ones I mentioned).
If you want to say we are not christen because we don’t believe in the definition we do then fine. BUT DON”T USE LIES AND UNTRUTHS AS PROOF THAT WE ARE NOT CHRISTEN.
Partha Sebastian – I’m sorry about your experience with the missionaries. It sounds like you could have used missionaries that know how to explain things better.
posted June 30, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Isn’t it odd how important defining who is in and who is out has become?
To some Old Order Amish they are the only Christians. The River Brethren I’ve met believe they are the only Christians. The Reformed Presbyterians teach that they are Christians and Roman Catholics cannot be. Roman Catholics reject Protestants (some even still believe that only they will be saved). Over the years Anglicans have hated Puritans who hated Baptists. They all hated Quakers and now hate Mormons, who reject the rest of “Christianity”. When will it ever end?
Many, many folks like myself have left the “Christian Church” in all its various disguises. And while I don’t believe it will ever happen when I am asked by your god and your Jesus why I left. I’ll just have to point to you all and ask “Are you kidding?”
If as Jesus says, in Matthew, you will be judged by how you treated Him (His brethren) how will you answer? “Gee, that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that I’m Saved! I claim you as my personal savior.” won’t cut it. Your “faith” is belied by your works and if there is a hell then I guess we’ll both be there.
posted June 30, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I am an Orthodox Christian with a capital “O”. I formerly was baptist (with both small and big “B”) and then Calvinist.
I understand why Mormons claim the title “Christian” in perfectly good conscience. But given their belief that the rest of the “Christian” world went dreadfully wrong from the death of the last Apostle until the supposed revelations to Joseph Smith, there’s something dishonest when they take offense at other Christians denying them the title. If the LDS Church is Christian, the other Churches that claim the title are “Christian” in only the most equivocal sense – and vice-versa. Pin them down, and Mormons will admit that.
But Dr. Mohler, as a Baptist, is indeed treading on the sort of dangerous ground noted by TMD (June 30, 2007 10:32 AM) by how he frames his argument. Pin him down and he should admit it.
Yeah, Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians and other garden-variety Protestants agree, sort of, with historic Christianity up through the Council of Chalcedon. That’s better than nothing – and nothing is how much of post-apostolic Christian history Joseph Smith accepted.
So I could, I suppose, say that a “true Christian” is one who believes the Nicene Creed. And in fact I do (perhaps arbitrarily) entertain a relatively lively hope for the salvation of Protestants like my wife and the rest of my family who, through Nicea to Chalcedon, are more or less orthodox.
But Protestants actually mean something different than did the Fathers of Nicea (and than do historic Christians today) when they confess in the Nicene Creed “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” They in effect believe that the gates of hell did prevail against the Church for a spell – ending at or after the Reformation. That puts them, notably, in the same general league with Joseph Smith (who thought the Church went wrong really earlier and that got right again later). Protestants reject or ignore – why? – the 5th through 7th ecumenical councils. Despite “Bible only” claims, they picked up from Anselm of the 12th century some oddball ideas of how the atonement works. The list could go on.
In short, Protestants don’t really believe “quo semper, ubique et ab omnibus,” but in a bit of “bootstrapping,” citing their own denials of Christian history, seek to redefine it.
In that sense, “Mormonism is not Christianity” is necessarily a matter of arbitrary degree when spoken by a Baptist or any other Protestant. Count me with St. Theophan, kindly quoted by John (June 30, 2007 2:34 PM), when it comes to Protestants and Mormons alike: “They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them.”
posted June 30, 2007 at 4:59 pm
“You know if you want to say we are not christen because your definition of a christen is to only believe in a trinitarian God then I am OK with you saying we are not christen.”
I’m active LDS. I do think that the question hinges on your definition of Christianity. If you say that Christians are people who accept Jesus as their Savior, then Mormons are certainly Christians. But that would also make Messianic Jews Christians, and they’d be the first to disagree.
But I’ve noticed that among the mainstream Christian churches, at least, their differences are based on technicalities, not fundamentals. for example, a catholic and a baptist may argue about the appropriate age to baptize someone, but they both agree that baptism is essential ordinance. If you say that Christians are people who agree on a set of fundamental doctrines, then Mormons probably are not christian. Not that sort of Christian anyway.
I’m a Mormon who prefers not to claim to be a Christian. To my mind, Christians do talk an awful lot of airey-fairey nonsense, mingled with vast quantities of hand-holding, hugging, sentimental singing, and other wussey activities that real men avoid like plague. I really don’t want people to associate me with all that.
posted June 30, 2007 at 6:27 pm
It is obvious that Dr. Mohler lost the debate in his first sentence. The question proposed, according to the title of the debate, is “Are Mormons Christian?” But rather than address that rather obvious and simple question, Dr. Mohler decided to address the question of whether Mormons are Christians “as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy,” an entirely different question.
I was not aware that there was any doubt about whether Mormons believe in the identical doctrines espoused by “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” They do not. But, since that was not the question asked, I do not see what Dr. Mohler’s answer to that question has to do with the question asked.
Maybe the question for the debate should have been, does the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” interpretation of the Bible conform to actual Biblical teachings? Put another way, maybe Dr. Mohler should have addressed the question of whether “traditional” Christians are Christian.
All together, I found Dr. Mohler’s entire response entirely unresponsive.
posted June 30, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I’m just curious how much money all of you paid your wonderful pastors to teach this inane garbage, oh wait, excuse me, I mean enlightened tidbits of wisdom you spew out about Mormons. There seem to be a lot of experts. Do you really talk about Christ at your church, or do you just talk about Mormons?
Just in case you think this is a mean-spirited comment, have no fear– I’m praying pray for you too.
posted June 30, 2007 at 7:17 pm
A quote from Dr Mohler’s essay: “the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God … or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.”
To anyone who actually knows something of Mormonism, this is an astonishing statement! Unfortunately, Dr. Mohler doesn’t explain how he arrived at this conclusion, but it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence in his understanding of his subject.
The Book of Mormon refers constantly to Jesus as “the only begotten son of God.” It contains hundreds of references to Christ’s atonement to save men from their sins.
The first Article of Faith (sort of like the Mormon version of the Nicene Creed) states: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.” The third Article of Faith states: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved.”
Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, considered by Mormons as the definitive treatise, states: “Salvation comes because of the atonement”
Dr. Mohler may have reason to condemn Mormonism in relation to other authodox Christian doctrines. But in stating that Mormons don’t believe in Christ’s atonement, he runs a strong risk that people will simply dismiss him as not knowing what he’s talking about.
posted June 30, 2007 at 9:00 pm
With hundreds of sects within christianity, why should the Mormons be treated any different then any other sect ?
Do evangelicals have the right to say who is christian and who is not ?
Their leaders can’t even decide if they hate homosexuals or love being one. (Haggard)
I think the debate is sort of lame, and we can thank the likes of Al Sharpton and others for this waste of time.
buckle
posted June 30, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I can’t help but imagine God and Christ looking upon his beloved children and being so dismayed at all the arguing, dissention, bitterness, self-righteouness and constant bickering “in His name”. He loves us all, right? Even if we are like children fighting in the sandbox, “I’m right, no— I”m right” and on and on and on it goes.
Why can’t we just accept that everyone thinks he/she is right and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. He knows none of us know His truth. It’s impossible. He’s God–we aren’t. The good news is that He loves us anyway. Just like a child who goes against his parents, those parents never stop loving that child. If a parent’s love is that great, how much greater is God’s love for his fault-filled children?? All we can do is believe the best we can and rest in the knowledge that we are loved not for what we insist is the truth, but because HE is truth.
posted June 30, 2007 at 10:54 pm
We don’t get to say who is – or is not – on the Ship of Christ. Their very name includes Jesus Christ in it, so I guess our opinion is out of play. That they don’t necessarily define it the way someone else does is of no consequence. Thank goodness (God) for that!
posted June 30, 2007 at 11:09 pm
One of the major foundations of Christianity is The Word of God that was written for instruction and teaching and inspiration for mankind. Christianity has determined that there are 66 “God-Breathed” Books of the Christian Bible. The book of Revelation in Chapter 22 states that woe to someone who would add to or take away from The Words of this Book. Some might say those words are applicable only to the singular book of Revelation; however, I believe and know that because God has protected His Word throughout 6000 years, that it is not a coincident that the last book of the Christian bible was Revelation (because it was written last) and I would maintain that those words are not only applicable to the book of Revelation but applicable to the Christian Bible and its 66 books in entirety! While Catholics are indeed Christians, the additional 5 or 6 books used in the Catholic bible were in existence at the time that it was determined which books met the requirement of “God breathed” and those 5 or 6 were excluded as meeting all of the standards.
The Book of Morman written almot 1800 years later than Revelation clearly states in its introduction that it was written for the peoples of the new continent i.e. North and South America.
To believe this, would be to believe that the Creator of the Universe did not believe the original 66 books of the Bible (last written in I believe 93-97 A.D.?) covered North and South America because he didn’t know it would be discovered. That is ludicrous to think He didn’t know America was in the future of the world! There is no need for the words in The Book of Morman, which is the foundation of the Mormon Church, because the 66 Books in the Christian Bible is sufficient for all mankind on the face of the earth for entirety! The God I serve knew and planned for the existence and eventual discovery of North and South America and knew America would be the Christian light of the world. He even knew that Christopher Columbus, who it is believed to have Jewish roots, would be inspired by God to discover America and we are the Remnant of Israel!
So to believe in Mormonism as a Christian faith and based on The Book of Mormon would be to believe that God’s Original Word (last believed to be written 93A.D.-97A.D.) was not sufficient which would imply He i.e. God is not omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Which He clearly is and even gave warning to anyone that would add to or delete the Word of God.
Mormonism is not a Christian faith because it teaches from The Book of Mormon!
posted June 30, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Christianity is not just belief that Jesus was the Son of God, but that he is FULLY God and FULLY Man at the same time. And yes this is a lot in this and other concepts of Christianity that don’t make sense, sorry if it’s too confusing for you. If you want easy answers, Christianity is not the religion for you.
To Mormons- Do you believe that Jesus Christ is both Lord and the one true God, or just a great example, our brother, and our Savior (all of which he definitely is)?
BTW, the concept of marriages and families being sealed forever is a nice happy thought, but is not only not in the Bible, but is in fact against the words of Christ himself.
posted June 30, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Jesus called and ordained his apostles giving them the authority to preach, ordain, baptize etc. They did not call themselves nor could they and still be recognized by him.
Mainline christianity has taken the honor upon itself to organize, define, teach etc. It teaches for doctrine the commandments of man. It has a form of godliness but denies Gods power (revelation, miracles, etc.) It worships the hellenized nicene god fashioned from years of debate in 325 AD. This God is not the god of the bible but of Xenophanes and plato. Since eternal life is to know the true god, mainline christianity insists on holding souls back because it will not look and embrace the true god as defined by the LDS faith.
posted July 1, 2007 at 12:37 am
Here are a few gems from the Book of Mormon to those who insist that revelation ceased at end of the Bible (2 Nephi 29:6-8,10):
The gentiles will say: “A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible.”
Nephi responds: “Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?”
“Wherefore murmur ye because that ye shall receive more of my word?”
“Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.”
It’s fantastic that there are so many passionate believers in the Bible. I appreciate belief and conviction,and I believe the words of the Bible and read it every day, but I fear that most, if not all, derogatory comments about the Book of Mormon are coming from those who have never touched a copy of the book (lest they be smitten with a curse, just as their pastor taught them).
I guess I’m just wondering why some people believe so vehemently that God would not reveal his word to anyone else except those who lived in ancient Israel.
posted July 1, 2007 at 1:41 am
A few observations:
Jesus never used the word “Christian.” In fact, the word only appears three times in the New Testament.
- Acts 11:26. “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” They were called Christians by outsiders and enemies. In the first century, what made a person a Christian was simply a dedication to Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
- Acts 26:28. Agrippa replies to Paul, “A little more, and your arguments would make a Christian of me.” Is it Paul’s preceding testimony that defines a Christian? Paul testified that Hebrew prophets had foretold of Christ, that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, and that we obtain forgiveness through Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
- 1 Peter 4:16. “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God.” Well, if suffering defines a Christian, then one certainly cannot expel Mormons.
I noticed that Dr. Mohler was careful to use the term “Orthodox Christianity.” That was an appeal to the concept that in order to be called Christian, a religion must accept the councils and creeds in the centuries following the death of Christ. There were 21 ecumenical councils. Most Protestant religions only accept the first seven–should we expel them? How about the Eastern Orthodox Christians who reject all but the first three–should we expel them?
Usually, those who wish to label Mormons as non-Christians appeal to the Nicene creed. However, the scholars of the Nicene council never claimed authority to define “Christianity.” Furthermore, the Nicene Creed is heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy in it’s metaphysical concept of God. To the early “Christians” who had listened to Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed would have been a mass of confusion. Additionally, those who were excommunicated for rejecting the Nicene Creed were never labeled “non-Christian.”
The arguments people use to support the claim that “Mormons are not Christians” are all, upon close examination, baseless. They are merely word games cunningly devised to stir up contention and blind the eyes of humble seekers.
posted July 1, 2007 at 2:56 am
There is only one reason to propigate the deceptive lie that Mormons are not Christian. To scare people from learning what the LDS Church really teaches. Read the Book of Mormon. It’s free. Mormon.org
posted July 1, 2007 at 3:21 am
A quote from Dan: “To Mormons- Do you believe that Jesus Christ is both Lord and the one true God, or just a great example, our brother, and our Savior”
I’m sorry? You’re suggesting we might consider Jesus our Savior but not our god? What exactly do you mean by “Lord” and “one true god”? Give us some definitions to work with, and we might be able to answer you.
This is what I dislike most about Christianity — it always seems just a cobbler of vague concepts so ill-defined I doubt the Christians themselves really understand them.
Don’t call this Mormon a Christian. I don’t want to be thought of as one of those people.
posted July 1, 2007 at 5:31 am
As others have pointed out, if a Christian is only Christian when meeting the qualifications of “traditional Christian Orthodoxy” then no protestant group should be included. They simply aren’t orthodox Christians in any sense of the word.
posted July 1, 2007 at 6:26 am
I will only add this. As a former Mormon I spent years arguing these same points with Christians, trying desperately to prove to them that I was one too (a Christian that is), but I never stopped to look at it from their perspective. Looking back, I think I was afraid to. I was worried, in the back of mind, that perhaps THEY were right and then where would that leave me?
Long story short, I finally decided that IF the BOM, D&C, PoGP, etc were true then they could stand up to any scrutiny (as the Bible has done). I began to read and study (using multiple Bible translations, original church history documents, etc) some of the books that are on the market that oppose Mormon doctrine. Well thought out, well researched study helps by respected authors.
After two weeks of late nights and tears I came to the realization that I had been serving in a pseudo-Christian organization for years. Once the Truth was made clear to me I repented and asked the Lord to guide me away from these false teachings about Him and to steer me down the straight and narrow path. He’s been faithful to do so ever since and I can’t tell you the freedom I’ve experienced since that time…over 5 years ago.
So, to my brothers and sisters in the Mormon church…while YOU may be a Christian and your heart’s intent IS to serve the One True God, by remaining affiliated with and adhering to the doctrine of the LDS or RLDS or whatever “branch” of the church you are part of, you are missing out on that which you seek most…the FULLNESS of the gospel which can’t be found in the BOM or other church documents, but only in His Holy Word that, by His Grace and Sovereign Will, He has preserved for us this day.
May the Holy Spirit bless you with true understanding and call you out from the veil you don’t even realize your under.
posted July 1, 2007 at 9:28 am
That’s too bad, Michelle. I don’t know what you were studying, or how balanced your study was, but I thought the same thing several years ago. In my experience, it does indeed stand up to scrutiny. I don’t have an answer for everything, but I’ve got quite enough to satisfy me.
But that’s an interesting comment about the fullness of God’s holy word. Since we use the Bible as one of our holy texts, why would you consider that we don’t have the fullness of God’s word?
posted July 1, 2007 at 11:18 am
Dr. Mohler and others denying that Mormons are Christians:
If accepting the creedal formulations of “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is necessary for salvation, why didn’t Christ teach them? Why didn’t He know that trusting on his name and being born again was insufficient, like you do?
There are many accounts in the New Testament where Christ blesses one who has accepted him as their Lord. In none of these accounts does He say they are not saved until they understand the nature of the Trinity, or until they recant their belief in magic, reincarnation, the tooth fairy, or anything else. Because Christ taught that accepting him and being born again was sufficient for salvation, I don’t understand why you think Mormon belief in a pre-mortal existence, or the Book of Mormon, or anything else, would prevent the Christ of the New Testament from saving them.
Ultimately, it matters only whether Christ considers one Christian, and fortunately for Mormons, we can read the bible and see that the definition you’re using isn’t the definition Christ used to distinguish His followers.
posted July 1, 2007 at 12:28 pm
It’s interesting in the thought that it is Orthodox Christianity telling Mormons that they are not Christian, when it was Joseph Smith who first made the claim that the Christian Church was absent from the earth from the close of the NT until 1820. By Smith’s definition, Mormon teaching is not Christian teaching, assuming you understand Christianity as what has been historically taught in the Christian Church.
posted July 1, 2007 at 1:47 pm
*First of all, you must know where the name Mormon is–Mormons know it came from the supposed angel, Morni. Here is an example on what happened to missionaires in China one day:
A group of Mormons traveled to China to witness about Mormonism. Each time they mentioned the word ‘Mormon’ in the city, the Chinese people will tell them, that the word meant, follower of the devil or Satan. To not blow their cover–each time missionaries go do their ‘mission’, they don’t say they are Mormon, but Christian. This confuses many Christians in China and other parts of the world.
Mormons are not Christian, but a follower of Satan.
A few observations:
Jesus never used the word “Christian.” In fact, the word only appears three times in the New Testament.
*You need to explain what the word ‘Christian’ means? Christian means a follower of Christ, His disciple(student) and little christ.
- Acts 11:26. “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” They were called Christians by outsiders and enemies. In the first century, what made a person a Christian was simply a dedication to Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
*They already been, expelled!
- Acts 26:28. Agrippa replies to Paul, “A little more, and your arguments would make a Christian of me.” Is it Paul’s preceding testimony that defines a Christian? Paul testified that Hebrew prophets had foretold of Christ, that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, and that we obtain forgiveness through Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
*And your point is…..?
1 Peter 4:16. “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God.” Well, if suffering defines a Christian, then one certainly cannot expel Mormons.
*Mormons are a cardboard copy of Christians–they are not genuine. This verse is speaking to those who belong to God through Jesus Christ and not Mormons, because they don’t have a relationship with God.
*Pre-Mormons get baptized into Mormonism–doesn’t mean they are Christian in general. I could tell you, that I’m Paul the apostle, but will never become Paul. I don’t become Paul because I want to, I could follow his examples to live for Christ, but I could never be Paul. In the same way, Mormons could proclaim they are Christian but in reality they are not Christian at all, but pseudo-Christians(false Christians and false brethren).
*They are not saved and still dead in their sins, if they don’t repent before death and place their faith and trust upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and deny LSD, they are going to Hell.
I noticed that Dr. Mohler was careful to use the term “Orthodox Christianity.” That was an appeal to the concept that in order to be called Christian, a religion must accept the councils and creeds in the centuries following the death of Christ.
There were 21 ecumenical councils. Most Protestant religions only accept the first seven–should we expel them?
*The only creed I will ever accept is the Apostles Creed. Therein, are the teachings of the Holy Apostles–that were taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels after His ascension to the Father’s right hand.
How about the Eastern Orthodox Christians who reject all but the first three–should we expel them?
*We accept everything that comes from the Bible(sola scriptura)–not from man.
Usually, those who wish to label Mormons as non-Christians appeal to the Nicene creed. However, the scholars of the Nicene council never claimed authority to define “Christianity.” Furthermore, the Nicene Creed is heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy in it’s metaphysical concept of God. To the early “Christians” who had listened to Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed would have been a mass of confusion. Additionally, those who were excommunicated for rejecting the Nicene Creed were never labeled “non-Christian.”
The arguments people use to support the claim that “Mormons are not Christians” are all, upon close examination, baseless. They are merely word games cunningly devised to stir up contention and blind the eyes of humble seekers.
*Once again, Mormons can’t be Christian because they don’t follow Jesus Christ—they follow Jospeh Smith, LDS, apostles, prophets and the president.
*Christians are Christian because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, are Jesus sheep, hear His voice and they follow Him.
posted July 1, 2007 at 1:56 pm
There is only one reason to propigate the deceptive lie that Mormons are not Christian. To scare people from learning what the LDS Church really teaches.
*Do you want to see what Mormonism teaches?
You don’t want to read what they “really” teach.
Read the Book of Mormon. It’s free. Mormon.org
*I got the 1830 edition!
*Your foundation is weak!
*Why should I read the BOM, if it wasn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit?
*Where are the golden Nephite plates, that supposely the angel Morni) buried, then told Joesph Smith, to find at the Hill of Cumroah?
*Why are the Dea Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?
posted July 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm
What I love is that, when they’re trying to bolster and inflate their numbers so that they can justify statements like “this is a Christian country” and “the founding fathers were all Christian”, it seems EVERYONE is considered a Christian–even people who nominally just call themselves Christian because they’re parents were, even… the Mormons!! (I wouldn’t be surprised to hear them count Jews and Muslims as Christians, too!)
But when it comes to the usual agenda to divide and separate people from each other based on everything starting with the slightest deviation from their idea of “God’s law” on up… suddenly each individual group making declarations about who’s Christian is THE ONLY group who represent real Christians! LOL!
MC
posted July 1, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Sorry POC, I know you put an awful lot of time and effort into your 1.47 post. But I really doubt anyone has the time to read it.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “Read the Book of Mormon. It’s free. Mormon.org
*I got the 1830 edition!”
Great! Why don’t you try reading it?
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “*Why should I read the BOM, if it wasn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit?”
Neither is John Grisham, but I still find his books interesting and informative. What’s the point of owning a book if you’re not going to read it?
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “*Do you want to see what Mormonism teaches?
You don’t want to read what they “really” teach.”
How would you know when you’ve never even read the Book of Mormon? If you want a reliable explanation of Mormon teachings, you should try talking to a couple of Mormon missionaries some time. Far better than forming opinions based on hearsay. Do you have a problem with educating yourself?
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “*Why are the Dea Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?”
Because we don’t have them, as you well know. And what of it?
posted July 1, 2007 at 3:16 pm
*First of all, you must know where the name Mormon is–Mormons know it came from the supposed angel, Morni. Here is an example on what happened to missionaires in China one day:
A group of Mormons traveled to China to witness about Mormonism. Each time they mentioned the word ‘Mormon’ in the city, the Chinese people will tell them, that the word meant, follower of the devil or Satan. To not blow their cover–each time missionaries go do their ‘mission’, they don’t say they are Mormon, but Christian. This confuses many Christians in China and other parts of the world.
Mormons are not Christian, but a follower of Satan.
Uh… what? I am from China, and the word “Mormon” does not sound like anything in any dialect I know that might mean devil or Satan. The overwhelmingly majority of Chinese are not Christians, so they do not even know who/what Satan is. Therefore, why would they think some new word to them sounds like “Satan?”
Also, Mormon missionaries are not allowed inside China, but if they were, they would be speaking in Mandarin and Cantonese to us, not English. They would pronounce “Mormon” in its Chinese phonetic translation, which would not sound the same as a typical English speaker saying it. But that sound still has no relation to Satan or devil or evil or ghost or monster or any other negative word.
And since a Mormon is a Christian, why would Mormons telling people they are Christians cause confusion?
Does a baptist telling people he is a Christian cause confusion?
Does a catholic telling people he is a Christian cause confusion?
Look at this classification chart I made:
Living Things –> Animals –> Rabbits
Religions –> Christians –> Lutherans
Religions —> Christians –> Mormons
posted July 1, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“*Why are the Dead Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?”
When were the Dead Sea scrolls found? 1947 or so right? So In 1930 I could have said “Why are there no separate, unedited records on display that come from a little after the time that the events in the Bible transpired?” and used it as “proof” and I’m “right” that the Bible is fake.
Where is the second ten commandments tablet? Where is the rod of Aaron? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Where is Jesus Christ right now? Why won’t he appear to me if he is real? Just because we do not have everything does not mean it did not exist at one point.
posted July 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm
But when it comes to the usual agenda to divide and separate people from each other based on everything starting with the slightest deviation from their idea of “God’s law” on up… suddenly each individual group making declarations about who’s Christian is THE ONLY group who represent real Christians! LOL!
Well. Laugh at your own deception. Non-Christians always like to paint Christianity in great extremes, while ignoring the truth. There are more than 30,000 denominations that–although in some disagreement–they acknowledge the Christianity of the others. They carry the essential beliefs.
But as long as you can satisfy yourself by characterizing your interlocutors any way convenient to you–knock yourself out.
posted July 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm
In response to POC777:
Christian means a follower of Christ, His disciple(student) and little christ.
* The LDS church teaches, and the LDS saints believe, that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He is–the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the World. We love Him and Worship him as such.
And your point is…..?
* My point is that LDS doctrine, in embracing the Bible as God’s word, teaches the same truth that Paul did in his witness to Agrippa. If that is the definition of “Christian,” then Mormons qualify.
Mormons are a cardboard copy of Christians–they are not genuine. This verse is speaking to those who belong to God through Jesus Christ and not Mormons, because they don’t have a relationship with God.
* Huh? Again, in embracing the precious truths in the Bible, LDS doctrine affirms our relationship with God. We are His children. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we will return to live eternally with God.
Mormons could proclaim they are Christian but in reality they are not Christian at all, but pseudo-Christians(false Christians and false brethren).
* On what grounds?
They are not saved and still dead in their sins, if they don’t repent before death and place their faith and trust upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and deny LSD, they are going to Hell.
* I deny LSD! It is an illegal and addictive drug! Seriously, though, LDS doctrine again affirms the absolute necessity of faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. It is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ that God’s children can be saved. As far as Mormons going to Hell–I won’t pass judgment. Christ is the judge of our souls.
The only creed I will ever accept is the Apostles Creed. Therein, are the teachings of the Holy Apostles–that were taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels after His ascension to the Father’s right hand.
* Then by the definition of “Orthodox Christianity,” you also, my brother, are not a Christian.
Once again, Mormons can’t be Christian because they don’t follow Jesus Christ—they follow Jospeh Smith, LDS, apostles, prophets and the president.
* Once again, LDS doctrine, and the LDS saints, believe first and foremost in the Gospel–the Good News–of Jesus Christ. We believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who testified of Jesus Christ, just as the prophets of the Old Testament did. We have apostles in our church, just as Jesus Christ did in the New Testament. The defining characteristic of our prophets and apostles are that they stand as special witnesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world.
Christians are Christian because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, are Jesus sheep, hear His voice and they follow Him.
* Agreed. The voice of the Good Shepherd is the only one that will lead us to salvation and life eternal. I follow Him with full purpose of heart.
posted July 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
“The book of Revelation in Chapter 22 states that woe to someone who would add to or take away from The Words of this Book.”
As far as anyone who is not God can tell, the passage you referenced is only talking about adding words into the Book of Revelations and taking words out. It is not talking about witting additional words that God commands you to write, which are eventually added to the Bible.
The Proof:
Deuteronomy 4:2 says “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
And Proverbs 30:6 states “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
If both passages were strictly speaking to the problem of adding scripture to the Bible, it could be argued that anyone who wrote anything after Moses penned Deuteronomy was a false prophet, as you call Joseph Smith for translating the words God commanded him to translate. In both cases these passages address the temptation for anyone to presumptuously speak for God.
The real issue lies in whether or not Joseph Smith was really acting as a mouthpiece for the Almighty. Did he truly reflect the mind and will of God by his teachings? Or did he inject his own views into what is today referred to as the restored gospel?
That is a whole separate topic…
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
“While Catholics are indeed Christians, the additional 5 or 6 books used in the Catholic bible were in existence at the time that it was determined which books met the requirement of “God breathed” and those 5 or 6 were excluded as meeting all of the standards.”
So were many of the books found in the LDS cannon. If they are true, Joseph did not write them in the 1800′s, he merely translated them by the power of God into a modern language. If the Book of Mormon is true, it’s beginning was 600 BC (before any of the books in the New Testament were written) and it’s end was 400 AD (long after the last books of the New Testament were written).
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
“The Book of Mormon written almost 1800 years later than Revelation clearly states in its introduction that it was written for the peoples of the new continent i.e. North and South America.
To believe this, would be to believe that the Creator of the Universe did not believe the original 66 books of the Bible (last written in I believe 93-97 A.D.?) covered North and South America because he didn’t know it would be discovered.”
How do you come to that conclusion? Why would God not have to know about America for The Book of Mormon to be written? When one says that the Book of Mormon is “for” the North and South Americas, they mean it is a religious history of those two continents. Of course God knew all along what was going to happen and what was happening. He is God. He knows everything. Past, present, and future. If you feel Mormons do not believe this then you do not understand what Mormons believe.
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
“Mormonism is not a Christian faith because it teaches from The Book of Mormon!”
Good logic there(sarcasm). Just like thinking anything after Deuteronomy 4:2 is blasphemy written by false prophets.
posted July 1, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Sorry POC, I know you put an awful lot of time and effort into your 1.47 post. But I really doubt anyone has the time to read it.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “Read the Book of Mormon. It’s free. Mormon.org
*I got the 1830 edition!”
Great! Why don’t you try reading it?
*I did and didn’t get the “burning of your bosom”. I didn’t get the same emotion you did. I don’t go on feelings! Have you ever even asked yourself this question: “If the heart is evil, why do I follow it?”
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “*Why should I read the BOM, if it wasn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit?”
Neither is John Grisham, but I still find his books interesting and informative.
What’s the point of owning a book if you’re not going to read it?
*The BOM was given by an angel–the Bible was given by inspiration from God written by holy men–led by the Holy Spirit.
An angel gave the Nephite plates to Joseph Smith and translated them with the special glasses–I don’t trust that source.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “*Do you want to see what Mormonism teaches?
You don’t want to read what they “really” teach.”
How would you know when you’ve never even read the Book of Mormon? If you want a reliable explanation of Mormon teachings, you should try talking to a couple of Mormon missionaries some time. Far better than forming opinions based on hearsay.
Do you have a problem with educating yourself?
My response:
I don’t believe Joesph Smith was a prophet of God
I don’t believe there was a universal apostasy in early Christianity.
I don’t believe Jesus was Lucifer’s brother.
I don’t believe God lives on a planet called Kolob.
I don’t believe God attained Godhood.
I don’t believe in the Gospel of Mormonism.
I don’t believe in the purgatory.
I don’t believe in the “three levels” of heaven.
I don’t believe in exaltation.
I don’t believe in eternal marriage.
I don’t believe in baptism for the dead.
I don’t believe in pre-existence.
I don’t believe salvation by works.
Those doctrines and others are not found either in the Bible or the BOM.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: “*Why are the Dea Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?”
Because we don’t have them, as you well know. And what of it?
*Without any evidence, there’s no such thing as truth.I need evidence–proof. Without any evidence the BOM is not vaildated.
Posted by: Wizard of ID | July 1, 2007 3:10 PM
posted July 1, 2007 at 4:26 pm
The below quote is absolutely true in every detail. Dr. Mohler is either lying about having enough knowledge to judge if Mormons are Christians, or is a very confused person.
A quote from Dr Mohler’s essay: “the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God … or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.”
To anyone who actually knows something of Mormonism, this is an astonishing statement! Unfortunately, Dr. Mohler doesn’t explain how he arrived at this conclusion, but it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence in his understanding of his subject.
The Book of Mormon refers constantly to Jesus as “the only begotten son of God.” It contains hundreds of references to Christ’s atonement to save men from their sins.
The first Article of Faith (sort of like the Mormon version of the Nicene Creed) states: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.” The third Article of Faith states: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved.”
Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, considered by Mormons as the definitive treatise, states: “Salvation comes because of the atonement”
Dr. Mohler may have reason to condemn Mormonism in relation to other authodox Christian doctrines. But in stating that Mormons don’t believe in Christ’s atonement, he runs a strong risk that people will simply dismiss him as not knowing what he’s talking about.
Another EXCELLENT POINT is this:
To Dr. Mohler and others who say Mormons are not Christians:
“If accepting the creedal formulations of “traditional Christian orthodoxy” (all established hundreds of years after Jesus died) is necessary to be considered a real Christian and partake of salvation, why didn’t Christ teach them? Why didn’t He know that trusting on his name and being born again was insufficient, like you do?
There are many accounts in the New Testament where Christ blesses one who has accepted him as their Lord. In none of these accounts does He say they are not saved until they understand the nature of the Trinity. Because Christ taught that accepting him and being born again was sufficient for salvation, I don’t understand why you think Mormon belief in the Book of Mormon, or anything else, would prevent the Christ of the New Testament from saving them.
Ultimately, it matters only whether Christ considers one Christian, and fortunately for Mormons, we can read the bible and see that the definition you’re using isn’t the definition Christ used to distinguish His followers.
Maybe the question for the debate should have been, does the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” interpretation of the Bible conform to actual Biblical teachings? Put another way, maybe Dr. Mohler should have addressed the question of whether “traditional” Christians are Christian.”
Mormons believe everything in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. What they do not believe in (in terms of deriving spiritual authority from) is the stuff that happened hundreds of years after Christ died and ascended to heaven.
Mormons believe that when verses in the Bible speak of “false prophets deceiving many” and “being careful not to be led away by false doctrines” etc, they feel these verses apply to what became the CATHOLIC church, and the branches that eventually split from it. That is why a restoration needed to occur. That is why God called Joseph Smith to restore Christianity to what it is supposed to be.
And just as the ancient Jews rebelled against Gods words when he told them that he has come to fulfill the old testament and bring in the new law, modern “Christians” rebel against God once again when he sends a prophet to once again cleanse His church.
The result of Jesus’ preaching was the New Testament.
The result of God calling Joseph Smith to be a prophet was The Book of Mormon.
Note: Mormons do NOT think Jesus and Joseph are equals. Jesus is their LORD and SAVIOR. Joseph was merely a prophet…one of many.
posted July 1, 2007 at 4:37 pm
In response to POC777:
Christian means a follower of Christ, His disciple(student) and little christ.
* The LDS church teaches, and the LDS saints believe, that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He is–the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the World. We love Him and Worship him as such.
**You don’t love Him because you don’t follow His commandments(John 15:10). You keep the “everlasting gospel” of LDS and follow the commandments and ordinances–not what Jesus taught in the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
And your point is…..?
* My point is that LDS doctrine, in embracing the Bible as God’s word, teaches the same truth that Paul did in his witness to Agrippa. If that is the definition of “Christian,” then Mormons qualify.
**You still have to explain why are you a Christian.
Mormons are a cardboard copy of Christians–they are not genuine. This verse is speaking to those who belong to God through Jesus Christ and not Mormons, because they don’t have a relationship with God.
* Huh? Again, in embracing the precious truths in the Bible, LDS doctrine affirms our relationship with God. We are His children. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we will return to live eternally with God.
** You are not a spiritual child of God–Christians are.
Mormons could proclaim they are Christian but in reality they are not Christian at all, but pseudo-Christians(false Christians and false brethren).
* On what grounds?
**The Bible is proving you’re not Christian.
They are not saved and still dead in their sins, if they don’t repent before death and place their faith and trust upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and deny LDS, they are going to Hell.
* I deny Lds(I made a typo)! It is an illegal and addictive drug! Seriously, though, LDS doctrine again affirms the absolute necessity of faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. It is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ that God’s children can be saved. As far as Mormons going to Hell–I won’t pass judgment. Christ is the judge of our souls.
If you were to get into an accident and die today(God forbid)will God allow you into His Heavenly pearly gates? Why?
The only creed I will ever accept is the Apostles Creed. Therein, are the teachings of the Holy Apostles–that were taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels after His ascension to the Father’s right hand.
* Then by the definition of “Orthodox Christianity,” you also, my brother, are not a Christian.
*I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don’t belong to Him.
Once again, Mormons can’t be Christian because they don’t follow Jesus Christ—they follow Jospeh Smith, LDS, apostles, prophets and the president.
* Once again, LDS doctrine, and the LDS saints, believe first and foremost in the Gospel–the Good News–of Jesus Christ. We believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who testified of Jesus Christ, just as the prophets of the Old Testament did. We have apostles in our church, just as Jesus Christ did in the New Testament.The defining characteristic of our prophets and apostles are that they stand as special witnesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world.
**So you believe a prophet who contradicted the Bible, was in the occult and lived in polygamy?
Christians are Christian because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, are Jesus sheep, hear His voice and they follow Him.
* Agreed. The voice of the Good Shepherd is the only one that will lead us to salvation and life eternal. I follow Him with full purpose of heart.
You are Christian if you have….
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can’t save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian–if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
Posted by: Roper | July 1, 2007 3:39 PM
posted July 1, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“*Without any evidence, there’s no such thing as truth.I need evidence–proof. Without any evidence the BOM is not vaildated.”
If you really regard that statement as true, how can you belong to ANY religion. They all require faith, do they not? The Bible is no better proof than the Koran, which is no better than the Talmud, which is no better than the Tipitaka, which is no better than the Book of Mormon, which is no better than (insert other major religions holy book here).
BTW, how do you KNOW God does not live on a planet called Kolob? Does the Bible say He does not? Even if Mormonism (the apparent source of that information) is false, God could still live on Kolob. If Mormonism is false, then there is a good chance Satan himself inspired Joseph Smith to make up Mormonism. Satan, while evil and greedy, probably DOES have more historical knowledge than any living person on Earth right now. Could not Satan have told Joseph this trivial fact, that God lives on a planet called Kolob, which is heaven? Satan lies a lot, but he does not always lie.
So why do you so strongly believe that God does not live on Kolob? Does it even matter? Is it central to a Christian’s salvation to believe that God does not live on Kolob? Where in the Bible does it state what heaven is exactly and the name of the planet, if any, heaven is built around?
posted July 1, 2007 at 4:57 pm
You are Christian if you have….
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can’t save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian–if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
******************
I’m pretty sure all Mormons have done those four things. They believe in those verses just like you do.
Oh wait, you are one of those “FAITH ALONE SAVES US, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS CONFESS JESUS IS OUR SAVIOR AND SAY WE ACCEPT HIM IN OUR HEART AND WE WILL INSTANTLY BE SAVED, PERIOD!!” people, huh?
Well, Mormons also feel that they must, in addition to simply saying “I believe!”, also live a good, Christian life how Jesus taught…but that should be common sense, right?
I mean, if someone did those four steps you mentioned, then murdered 23 people and mutilated and ate their dead corpses, that would disqualify them from salvation, right?
Also, what of James 2:14-17
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
So yeah, Mormons believe that no matter what they do, only Jesus Christ can save them. But they also believe it is possible to confess you love Jesus and accept him as your Saviour, but not live how he told us to, and therefore put yourself in danger of condemnation.
If your mom says “Billy, if you clean your room you can have ice cream!” So you clean your room really good, and then pour gas all over the house and light it, burning the house down and killing your grandfather, do expect to get ice cream?
Common sense, people. Common sense.
posted July 1, 2007 at 5:02 pm
To Dr. Mohler and others who say Mormons are not Christians:
“If accepting the creedal formulations of “traditional Christian orthodoxy” (all established hundreds of years after Jesus died) is necessary to be considered a real Christian and partake of salvation, why didn’t Christ teach them? Why didn’t He know that trusting on his name and being born again was insufficient, like you do?
There are many accounts in the New Testament where Christ blesses one who has accepted him as their Lord. In none of these accounts does He say they are not saved until they understand the nature of the Trinity. Because Christ taught that accepting him and being born again was sufficient for salvation, I don’t understand why you think Mormon belief in the Book of Mormon, or anything else, would prevent the Christ of the New Testament from saving them.
*The BOM won’t save you, Jesus Christ will by His precious blood.
Ultimately, it matters only whether Christ considers one Christian, and fortunately for Mormons, we can read the bible and see that the definition you’re using isn’t the definition Christ used to distinguish His followers.
Maybe the question for the debate should have been, does the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” interpretation of the Bible conform to actual Biblical teachings?
*The doctrines are comfirmed “in the Bible”.
Put another way, maybe Dr. Mohler should have addressed the question of whether “traditional” Christians are Christian.”
Mormons believe everything in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. What they do not believe in (in terms of deriving spiritual authority from) is the stuff that happened hundreds of years after Christ died and ascended to heaven.
*We believe and teach in the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ–what He gave to the Holy Apostles, we accept as truth.
Mormons believe that when verses in the Bible speak of “false prophets deceiving many” and “being careful not to be led away by false doctrines” etc, they feel these verses apply to what became the CATHOLIC church, and the branches that eventually split from it. That is why a restoration needed to occur. That is why God called Joseph Smith to restore Christianity to what it is supposed to be.
*The problem is Mormonism claims that Christianity apostasize in history, but this is not true–it is not recorded. Show us one record of evidence and we will believe you. There was no apostasy–nothing had to be restored. And if nothing had to be restored, then Joseph Smith was never commissioned by God, to bring the Mormon Church into existence. LDS is Smith’s creation–that he got from his imagination.
And just as the ancient Jews rebelled against Gods words when he told them that he has come to fulfill the old testament and bring in the new law, modern “Christians” rebel against God once again when he sends a prophet to once again cleanse His church.
*There is always renmant of true Christains.
Jesus said “and the gates of hell won’t prevail against it”. Christians are not apostases and not lost–Jesus said “My church”– millions of Christians–are the Bride of Christ. Mormonism is not from the Bride of Christ, but psuedo-Christianity.
The result of Jesus’ preaching was the New Testament.
*The four Gospels–not when He preached to the Lamanites(Indians) in 33 AD. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Jesus literally went to the Americas.
The result of God calling Joseph Smith to be a prophet was The Book of Mormon.
*Joseph Smith called himself, God didn’t call him.
*This is an imporant true:
“Whenever, something or someone, contradicts, opposes and denies, what God has already said in the Bible, is not from God.
The BOM is not God—it is false, and what is false comes from the ‘father of lies’–Satan. It is false because the peoples and locations and other information from the BOM are only a fable.
Note: Mormons do NOT think Jesus and Joseph are equals. Jesus is their LORD and SAVIOR. Joseph was merely a prophet…one of many.
*Mormons think Joseph Smith is there savior and not Jesus Christ. LDS teaches that without eternal marriage there is salvation–no eternal life. That’s not what the Bible says.
Posted by: Joolie | July 1, 2007 4:26 PM
posted July 1, 2007 at 5:24 pm
You are Christian if you have….
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can’t save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian–if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
******************
I’m pretty sure all Mormons have done those four things. They believe in those verses just like you do.
*It doesn’t look like they have–even Satan knows God’s plan of salvation.
Oh wait, you are one of those “FAITH ALONE SAVES US, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS CONFESS JESUS IS OUR SAVIOR AND SAY WE ACCEPT HIM IN OUR HEART AND WE WILL INSTANTLY BE SAVED, PERIOD!!” people, huh?
*This is the Christians statement of faith: “I am a sinner saved by grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone”.
*God does His work through out the Christian’s life not the Christian(Philip 2:12-13)–can’t do nothing without Christ(John 15:5)–this only comes through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit(Gal 5:22-25) when they deny the flesh(Col 3:5-11)–the Holy Spirit completes the work(Philip 1:6).
No Christian can do nothing without God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit!
Well, Mormons also feel that they must, in addition to simply saying “I believe!”, also live a good, Christian life how Jesus taught…but that should be common sense, right?
*Jesus says “He who loves Me, will keep my commandments”. His commandments are His teachings. Mormons follow LDS teachings–not Jesus teachings.
I mean, if someone did those four steps you mentioned, then murdered 23 people and mutilated and ate their dead corpses, that would disqualify them from salvation, right?
*Since the love of God has been poured into the heart of the Christian by the Holy Spirit, have God’s law and hatred(except when in the flesh) is no longer governing their life, how could a Christian kill another person?
Also, what of James 2:14-17
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
*Not salvation by works, but faith that works. Faith that is real and genuine. An unbeliever’s faith is dead–they are not saved, in the other hand, the person who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit–there faith is alive.
So yeah, Mormons believe that no matter what they do, only Jesus Christ can save them. But they also believe it is possible to confess you love Jesus and accept him as your Saviour, but not live how he told us to, and therefore put yourself in danger of condemnation.
*Those who are in Christ are no longer condemned(Rom 8:1-2)
*He didn’t come into this world to condemn anyone(John 3:17)
If your mom says “Billy, if you clean your room you can have ice cream!” So you clean your room really good, and then pour gas all over the house and light it, burning the house down and killing your grandfather, do expect to get ice cream?
*I have no clue, what you’re saying here.
Common sense, people. Common sense.
Posted by: Joolie | July 1, 2007 4:57 PM
posted July 1, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“*Without any evidence, there’s no such thing as truth.I need evidence–proof. Without any evidence the BOM is not vaildated.”
If you really regard that statement as true, how can you belong to ANY religion. They all require faith, do they not? The Bible is no better proof than the Koran, which is no better than the Talmud, which is no better than the Tipitaka, which is no better than the Book of Mormon, which is no better than (insert other major religions holy book here).
*If you deny the Bible, you are denying God. The Word of God–is His final revelation to mankind– its the truth, all others ‘sacred books’ are false.
*If no prophecies contain in the BOM as the Bible does, then why accept it as the Word of God?
BTW, how do you KNOW God does not live on a planet called Kolob? Does the Bible say He does not?
*Putting words into God’s mouth– that is wrong. That’s what you’re doing.
Even if Mormonism (the apparent source of that information) is false, God could still live on Kolob.
*The problem is that the Bible does not teach this–it teaches that He lives in “Heaven”(Matthew 6:9). Matthew 6:9, does not say, “Our Father on the planet Kolob” or “Our Father on a far star”, no, it says “Our Father in Heaven. God is in Heaven not on the planet Kolob, as Mormonism assumes.
If Mormonism is false, then there is a good chance Satan himself inspired Joseph Smith to make up Mormonism. Satan, while evil and greedy, probably DOES have more historical knowledge than any living person on Earth right now.
Could not Satan have told Joseph this trivial fact, that God lives on a planet called Kolob, which is heaven? Satan lies a lot, but he does not always lie.
Satan is called the “father of lies” there is no truth in him(John 8:44). Will you read Genesis 3:1-6? Satan questions God’s Word(v.1) Satan deceives(v.4-5). Satan tells Mormons that they will become gods–one of Satan’s lies. That’s not what Jesus taught!
So why do you so strongly believe that God does not live on Kolob? Does it even matter?
*LDS is adding to what God has already said in the Bible–they have the BOM, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham and many revelations.God calls them liars for adding to His Word(Proverb 30:5-6). And all “liars” will have their part in the lake of fire(Rev 21:8).
Is it central to a Christian’s salvation to believe that God does not live on Kolob? Where in the Bible does it state what heaven is exactly and the name of the planet, if any, heaven is built around?
*God lives in Heaven(Revelation 4:1-11)
posted July 1, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Boring.
Very, very boring.
So very, very boring, I can think of a thousand things I’d rather do than read your posts, POC. Up to and including watching paint dry.
posted July 1, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Let us examine a few of the inconsistencies of Mormonism, shall we?
Mormons here have commented that they use the Bible and believe in it, yet by their Articles of Faith (#8) they affrim that the Bible is mistranslated, resulting in the need for a new translation performed by Smith.
Smith claimed different things about his visitations at various points. He claimed he was visited by “the Lord,” by the angel Nephi, by the angel Moroni, by Christ and God, respectively.
Smith claimed that a temple would be built in Independence, MO by the generation then living. (Doctrines and Covenants 84:4)
Smith claimed Jesus would return in 1891. (Documentary History of the Church 2:182)
Brigham Young taught that Adam was God (Journal of Discourses 1:50-51) and claimed divine revelation of this “fact.” (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)
Brigham Young proclaims doctrine of (continuing) blood atonement was a teaching of Jesus. (Journal of Discourses 4:219,220) This is later overturned by McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, pg. 92)
Joseph Smith introduced polygamy (Doctrines and Covenants 132 (particularly vv. 52-54)) which contradicts the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:24).
Brigham Young taught that polygamy was necessary for individual godhood (Journal of Discourses 11:269)
Orson Pratt claimed Jesus had multiple wives (as did the Father) (The Seer pg. 172)
God (the Father) had physical, sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus. (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 Ed., pg. 547)
It was Jesus’ wedding at Cana (Journal of Discourses 2:210). This also states that Jesus produced children.
Jesus and Satan are brothers (Gospel Through the Ages, pg. 15; Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 33-34)
Men can become gods and excel to the current level of God (Gospel Through the Ages, pg. 107)
Justification by Faith considered a “pernicious doctrine (Articles of Faith, pg. 479)
Bruce McConkie calls salvation by grace the second greatest heresy to the Mormon Church. (Sunstone Review, March 1984, pg. 9)
As we can see, the Mormon Church is not at all doctrinally similar to Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox faith. It denies major tennants of the Christian faith and many portions of Scripture. It not only adds to Scripture, but also takes away from it. It is also disingenuous for Mormons to attempt to be known as a mainline Christian group while minimizing these great differences. They say that they are Christians because of their conviction of Jesus as Savior, but we must again ask who or what is their God, their Jesus, and their natures as humans? The true answers to these questions set them far apart from other Christian groups.
posted July 1, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Okay POC777,
One last attempt at reasonable discussion here.
From POC:
You are Christian if you have….
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can’t save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian–if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
My response:
1. I am a sinner and cannot save myself.
2. I absolutely affirm that Jesus gave His life for me.
3. I repent daily and plead to Him to forgive my sins and strengthen my weakness.
4. I received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior when I was baptized, and I believe I have continued that relationship throughout my life.
All of these are Articles of Faith–official public declarations of doctrine–of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Do I qualify yet, POC?
From POC:
I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don’t belong to Him.
My response:
You have placed yourself in the position of Jesus Christ to judge whether I (and LDS saints in general) belong to His fold–a decidedly un-Christian position and one expressly forbidden by Jesus himself. Our conversation is over.
posted July 1, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Look, according to the individuals that wrote the works compiled in the New Testament . . ., Mormons, or Latter Day Saints, are not Christians.
It does not take theology degree to figure that out.
posted July 1, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Then, Donny, why didn’t they ever say that?
Steve, you’ll find scholarly responses to each of your items at
http://www.fairlds.org
http://www.shields-research.org
If you not interested in the actual answers, and are just here to bait someone into sparring with you, then I’m out.
posted July 1, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I agree with Roper. Those are very lame talking points you got from your pastor Steve. Or perhaps you picked up a faith-promoting pamphlet at your church today?
posted July 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Okay POC777,
One last attempt at reasonable discussion here.
From POC:
You are Christian if you have….
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can’t save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian–if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
My response:
1. I am a sinner and cannot save myself.
2. I absolutely affirm that Jesus gave His life for me.
3. I repent daily and plead to Him to forgive my sins and strengthen my weakness.
How does He strengthen you?
4. I received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior when I was baptized, and I believe I have continued that relationship throughout my life.
*Baptism is a sacarment–immersed in a pool of water will never save you–the atonement of Jesus blood will. Baptism has no power to save anyone–the gospel message(in the Bible) saves. It is religious to be baptized without conversion–that is self-righteous–God doesn’t want your religion but your whole heart. He wants you. First, is conversion to Christianity–regeneration, secondly, its idenification in water baptism–the person has spiritual died and resurrected with Jesus Christ–a watery grave–to now live the newness of life for God. Without accepting Jesus Christ into your heart first, means nothing. Even Jehovah’s Witness, get baptized–they are not saved, but lost in their sins.
All of these are Articles of Faith–official public declarations of doctrine–of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*It doesn’t matter, what matters is “if” have accepted Jesus Christ into your heart and life–now if you haven’t you are lost.
Do I qualify yet, POC?
From POC:
I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don’t belong to Him.
My response:
You have placed yourself in the position of Jesus Christ to judge whether I (and LDS saints in general) belong to His fold–a decidedly un-Christian position and one expressly forbidden by Jesus himself. Our conversation is over.
*Right, but you still ain’t a Christian.
Posted by: Roper | July 1, 2007 8:30 PM
posted July 1, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Look, according to the individuals that wrote the works compiled in the New Testament . . ., Mormons, or Latter Day Saints, are not Christians.
It does not take theology degree to figure that out.
Exactly—all it takes is the wisdom of God–that comes directly from the Bible–taught by the Holy Spirit—He dwells in every genuine Christian–to “cast down every argument”.
*I don’t have an MA, Ph.D but a B.A–born-again!
Posted by: Donny | July 1, 2007 8:42 PM
posted July 1, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Brian and Roper,
What is lame about presenting facts from your own doctrinal history? Instead of only stonewalling, why don’t you present factual evidence for why you believe what you do and how it is supported by Scripture? Brian, I don’t know why you think other Christian groups must be preaching against Mormonism, these things barely, if ever, come up in most churches. I personally think it should come up more so that people will not be deceived. Let us reasonably and rationally talk about your faith and doctrines. Since I have already studied it and rejected it, you won’t convince me of its merits, but at least we can come to common consensus on where exactly we disagree and what the result should be. Roper, I am not trying to “bait” you, but rather trying to engage you in discussion about these areas of concern. If your church denies the virgin birth of Christ, Salvation by Grace, and the uniqueness of God as separate in past, present, and future form, in function, and in ability from humans, you should come out and reveal it unless you are trying to hide something on purpose. It certainly should not be up to me to educate others on this thread about what Mormons really believe. Thank you, however, for including the links.
posted July 1, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Roper,
I have read your rather interesting paper on the pre-existing Adam. It leaves me with questions. How is the name “Ancient of Days,” which most biblical scholars (even secular ones) attribute to God, attributed to Adam? And how is Adam considered to be Michael the Archangel in his pre-mortal state when Michael is brought up as still sexisting in his function as defending the dispersed people of Israel in the book of Daniel? Also what is your biblical basis for pre-existence besides Jer. 1:4-5, as Psalm 139:13 may contradict this interpretation of Jer? Also, cannot Jeremiah be taken as referring to a predestination by an all-knowing God, rather than a pre-incarnate state? I also find it interesting that you would mention that the light could be this pre-existing Adam, when John 1:1-4, 8-14 says that Christ was the light (and light in its figurative sense is only used of God and his holiness)? Only Christ, and not any human could be the light. Not only that, but the words used by John in this section must also destroy any notion that a man, pre-existent or otherwise, could make other men holy. Jesus, therefore, could not be only another son of God, but the Christ: fully man and fully God. Otherwise, Adam, Moses, John the Baptist, and others could, theoretically, be light and truth and lead men to holiness. Jesus in the gospels, and John and Paul in their letters could not be clearer that this is an impossibility.
posted July 1, 2007 at 11:07 pm
sorry, I meant “still existing…”
posted July 1, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Okay, Steve, you seem sincere, so I’ll give it a shot.
Before we jump in to all of the issues you brought up, I’d like to know a little about what you believe.
According to your beliefs, what has to happen in order for a person to be saved? And what does salvation mean according to your faith?
posted July 1, 2007 at 11:31 pm
About half of this essays pounds away at the point that Mormons are Christians, but it’s not until halfway down that we get some specifics:
“The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology.”
Whether it bears any resemblance to creeds developed centuries after the life of Christ, the Mormon view is based on the Bible. When Jesus was baptized, he stood in the River Jordan, the Holy Ghost descended like a dove and a voice from Heaven (presumably that of the Father) said, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Mormons take Jesus at his word when he said, “Father, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.”
“The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one.”
This statement is misleading. While Mormons do believe Jesus when he said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect,” Mormons worship the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.
“Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.”
How God got to be God is anybody’s guess but Mormons do believe that, as children of God, we have divine potential. Whether that is in conflict with “Christian orthodoxy” is irrelevant. Read your own Bible:
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” (1 Jn. 3:2-3)
Then he argues that “the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.”
That’s funny because my copy of the Book of Mormon says just the opposite:
“But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son.” (Alma 12:33)
Or here:
“And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.” (1 Nephi 11:33)
It’s easy to see why Dr. Mohler excludes Mormons from his definition of Christianity. “Normative Christianity” – as he calls it – is “defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus.” Mormons have the audacity to believe that Jesus defined what a Christian is, not some “doctrinal consensus” of European scholars centuries after the events of the Bible.
In rejecting these creeds, Mormons put their faith in scripture and revelation – which they consider more important than the judgments of committees, despite the claim that such creeds are “rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time.”
If Dr. Mohler is going to deny Christian status to Mormons, for their failure to “creed up,” perhaps Dr. Mohler should appeal to have these creeds added to the Bible. Otherwise, this form of exclusion seems a tad arbitrary.
posted July 1, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Why is it that the only sin Jesus won’t forgive is having an imperfect view of him?
When people say that Mormons are not Christians what they mean is they aren’t Trinitarians. I can’t seem to find the word trinity in the bible. (At least the 2 KJV’s I’ve read, one of which was the red letter version)
The only one with any right to say who is and who is not a Christian is Christ himself.
posted July 1, 2007 at 11:56 pm
The good professor makes quite a few assumptions that fairly well invalidate his argument. Basically, he seems to assume that everyone who claims to be Christian subscribes to the articles of the Council of Nicea and a bunch of other Creedal material. He ignores the possibility that Smith had a new revelation – but you cannot argu revelation, you only accept or deny it. If the LDS folks wanted to e Orthodox, they would likely not have formed another denomination. So start witht he simplest fact that they are a different organization, and move on from there.
I am not and have no inclination toward LDS theology, but I do not ismiss it out of hand simply because it is not my theology. Sadly, a lot of the arguments in this section seem to have devolved down to a variantion on “You’re not coming to my birthday party”. Thank goodness
Maurice, I read your posting and one word of advice – less caffeine. Second, I have bad news for you – God is a mixed race lesbian mom. Scared? Good – fear and respect are shades of the same color. See them both and you will learn to live more fully and joyfully.
I have long been an admirer of Card’s fiction – especailly the Ender/Bean stories and the Hatrack River saga. I fgure that if he can produce such excellent work, then taking some time to learn about what feeds his spirit is time well spent.
Peace be to you all – back off a bit, look around, and enjoy the varied scenery.
posted July 2, 2007 at 12:16 am
Well said, Dr. Mohler,
I am a non-denominational Christian and my faith (if you want to call it that)is not based on someone else’s interpretation of “religion”, or cultural movement. I know, based on the historical evidence (refer to “One Nation Under Gods-John Abanes), that Joseph Smith was a con-man and a swindler. One only has to take a look at his criminal record to know that. Furthermore, the disparity between Joseph Smith as the leader of a religious movement and Jesus Christ is extreme. Joseph Smith was killed trying to escape from jail where he was awaiting trial to be tried for burning down a newspaper building (in a vain attempt to suppress news article publications with regard to his “questionable” past). The point is this-Joseph Smith was shot, killed, and buried. He-No-Mo. So long Joe. Jesus on the other hand, well you know the rest. “He has risen” Mark 16:6
posted July 2, 2007 at 1:36 am
Mark De La Cruz,
If you actually read something balanced and scolarly with decent footnotes about Joseph Smith, like, for example “Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling” by Richard Bushman. You might see how ignorant you are of the facts of the life and death of Joseph Smith.
The same might be said of the majority of postings on this thread by critics of the Mormons.
http://www.lds.org
http://www.mormon.org
http://www.fairlds.org
These links will help to educate those of you who actually care whether you look like fools when speaking about Mormons. The rest of you just keep spouting ignorance, it really helps us Mormons look intelligent when compared to you.
Also, for any who would like to participate in a courteous, reasoned discussion of LDS doctrine you are invited to access our blog at:
truthrestored.townhall.com
Those who think Mormons don’t know their Bible or only use one version had best come prepared to justify those assertions. I personally tend to use the New Inspired Version in most of my Quotes, but we can use various translations.
posted July 2, 2007 at 2:50 am
“Joseph Smith was killed trying to escape from jail…”
A painted mob of hundreds of men brandishing knives, clubs and guns stormed the jail he had peacefully submitted himself to and were in the process of shooting into his jail room. Many people believe Joseph jumped from the window because he knew the mob was after him and it would save the people who wee in the jail room with him. If so, he was right. After his death, the mob let the others live.
To say he was killed while attempting to escape prison is flat out deceptive. He only tried to jump from the window AFTER people were shooting into his room both from the window and from the door way.
And just because Jesus died willingly on a cross and Joseph died while defending himself from his attackers, it does not mean Joseph is some evil guy. Making that comparison is retarded. There is no law saying you should let people murder you when they try. One of the purposes of Jesus life was to submit himself to the evil judgments of men. That was not one of the purposes of Joseph Smiths life, and you can’t fault him for trying to defend himself.
Many Christians have been killed while trying to defend themselves. Are they unchristian as well?
posted July 2, 2007 at 3:48 am
POC you are one fruity person. You seem to be being willingly ignorant. You use bible verses that Mormons believe in to “prove” Mormons are wrong. You just interpret the verses a different way. You reject all verses from the Book of Mormon and don’t even consider “what if it is real, additional revelation given from God?”
No where in the Bible does it say there are 66 books and none more can ever be added. No where did God say he is done talking to His children. There are a few verses that, upon first reading, might lead you to believe this, but those verses correct interpretation has been *proven* from a neutral standpoint using verses directly from the Bible in other posts on this thread.
Nothing Joseph Smith teaches contradicts the Bible. Only if you incorrectly interpret a verse in the Bible will it APPEAR, in a few places, to be a contradiction. Guess what, depending on how you interpret the Bible, the Bible contradicts the Bible. If you find a verse in the Bible that seems to contradict another verse, it means you are interpreting one or both of them incorrectly. So keep studying until you find the correct way to interpret the verse.
I’m sure you do that when you find a verse in the Bible that appears to be out of place, but you do not give the Book of Mormon the same courtesy. In fact, you go OUT OF YOUR WAY to try to find contradictions where none need exist.
Does Joseph teach some things that are either unclear or not present in the Bible? Yes. OF COURSE HE DOES. What would be the point of God talking to us in these modern days if he does not clarify his ancient words or give us additional knowledge?
Also, the people who made the Nicean and other creeds did not do it while even claiming (let alone having) officially authority to write additional scripture. Yet, they produced a wall of text that many people say one MUST BELIEVE in order to be a “true” Christian. If Jesus in the Bible taught us all the basic things we need to know to be a Chritian, why do people insist one must also believe in these additional creeds written hundreds of years after Jesus died?
Look at history to see that what eventually formed after Christs death was not a religion he would approve of. The Catholic church murdered millions of people and allowed all sorts of pegan rituals to enter their religion. They burned “witches” at the stake, tourtured men, women and children, waged wars against Muslims and Jews, taxed people heavily and controlled the Government, allowed people to pay set fees to have their sins cleaned (indulgences) and even the Pope’s thesmelves fought and MURDERED in order to attain Popehood. There is a reason the time after Jesus death until about the time that Joseph restored Christianity was called “THE DARK AGES.” Look it up.
You might at this point be tempted to say that if the creeds these people wrote are not needed, neither is what Joseph Smith brought to light needed. The answer to this is simple. Joseph Smith, if telling the truth about being a prophet, had direct authority from God Himself to teach what he did. God used Joseph Smith to give people clarification and additional instruction, to help them more easily live exactly how Jesus wants all Christians to live.
If Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then what he taught was necessary and is from God, and absolutely does not contradict a single verse in the Bible.
It all boils down to faith.
In the Book of Mormon it says if you want to know the answer to anything, simply pray about it. If you ask with a sincere heart, having faith in Christ, the truth will be made known to you. (Also says that in the Bible).
So ask God if you have ended up in a dead branch of Christianity or not. Ask Him if you should join the LDS church. As long as you have faith, and ask sincerely, He will answer you.
********
Also, it is interesting how Mormons post here they they love Jesus with all their heart and admit that He alone is their Savior, and that they are doing the best they know how to follow His teachings, and you STILL tell them “NO, YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!”
How can you say that to people who live decent lives and accept Jesus as their savior?
You really believe that the instant someone confesses that Jesus is their Savior and accept him into their heart, they are automatically “Saved” and therefore can do nothing ever to fall out of good standing with God? Then why do verses in the bible exist say things like “Faith without works is dead, being alone.” Don’t just quote other verses that say “We are saved by faith in Jesus” because Mormons also agree with that. You need to find a way to MAKE THE TWO VERSES NOT CONTRADICT EACHOTHER. Mormons do that by believing that the only way to be saved is to have faith in Jesus Christ sufficient to make you want to obey him and live a good life and be baptized etc.
Mormons DO NOT believe that their works (actions) save them, but they do believe that you must do more than simply say some words to be saved. They believe that if one has faith, they will do good works. But they also believe one can “lose faith” and do evil works that bar them from entering heaven, like murdering tons of people and need seeking forgiveness. And rape etc.
What kind of a God would say “Say 3 lines of text and you are saved, even if you sin like crazy and make no effort to live how Jesus taught.”
To say “Anyone who really accepts Jesus will never do these sins” is silly, because people change their minds ALL THE TIME. Are you saying that once one becomes a Christian they lose all free will? They no longer have the ability to change their mind and become evil?
I can find a person who believes just like you, that he is “already saved and need not do anything more” and then track his life and find that 7 years after “becomming saved” murdered his parents. So does that mean he was never a Christian in the first place? Because this has happened millions of times through out history, and happens every single day.
So how can YOU confidently say that anyone (yourself included) is “saved” and act like your “saved” status will never, ever, ever change? You have free will don’t you? You can change your mind, can’t you? Any wise God would understand that Humans who are told that they are “saved” and therefore can sin a little here and there will abuse their “Saved” status and use it as a shield to feel good about themselves while they sin on purpose, over and over again, because “they are already saved.”
Your “faith alone saves us, good actions mean nothing” belief is not scriptural because it ignores so many verses that say works are required.
Either that, or you are straining at gnats and playing with words. Mormons believe they are not “saved” until they are standing in Heaven in the presence of God Himself. Of course, there is no way they could get there if Jesus had not atoned for them, but there is also no way they could get there if they rejected Jesus, or were an unrepentant serial killer, etc.
Without Jesus, we are all lost. Our faith in Jesus is what allows his atonement to cover our many sins. He must have faith in him and accept him as our Savior. But at the same time, we can’t rape our neighbors children three times a year and then expect to enter heaven. We also cant say the little lines of text you say we need to say, and then sit in a chair watching TV all our life and expect Jesus to be happy with us. If you really believe in Jesus, you will DO GOOD WORKS. But also, if you beleive in Jesus and are doing good works, and then 10 years later somethig happens in your life and you decide to discard the idea of Jesus as your Savior, guess what? You are no longer “saved.”
So to say “I was saved on October 12, 1978!” is just silliness. You are not saved until you are with God in heaven.
posted July 2, 2007 at 7:14 am
Living in the heart of the LDS faith (Utah) I have come to have a deep love and appreciation for my LDS friends and neighbors. Many of which live very Christian lives. However, one major difference that Dr. Mohler did not address is the the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside of Christianity. What I have told friends is the I have come to know many fine Christian LDS people, however what their church teaches is not Christianity.
posted July 2, 2007 at 9:24 am
“These links will help to educate those of you who actually care whether you look like fools when speaking about Mormons. The rest of you just keep spouting ignorance, it really helps us Mormons look intelligent when compared to you.”
I’ve gotten all my information about Mormon Doctrine from The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and The King Follet Funeral Discourse.
I consider it pretty obvious that when you compare these writings with the Bible, I use NASB and ESV, that Mormonism is not Christianity.
“Living in the heart of the LDS faith (Utah) I have come to have a deep love and appreciation for my LDS friends and neighbors. Many of which live very Christian lives. However, one major difference that Dr. Mohler did not address is the the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside of Christianity. What I have told friends is the I have come to know many fine Christian LDS people, however what their church teaches is not Christianity.”
If they don’t practice Christianity, then they aren’t “Christian LDS people”.
“My Jesus is Black. Am I still Christian?”
YOU don’t “have” a Jesus. I don’t “have” a Jesus. There aren’t a bunch of Jesus’ running around for people to pick and choose. There was 1 Jesus (of the Bible) and he was a middle-eastern Jew. You can wish he was white or black all you want. He was Jewish.
And to all those who quote “judge not, lest ye be judged” please do some research on hermeneutics. That verse is simply not the blanket statement that people love to use it as. I’ve heard of a pastor named Paul Washer from Heart Cry Missionary and his response to the generic use of “judge not, lest ye be judged” is “twist not scripture, lest ye be like satan”.
posted July 2, 2007 at 9:26 am
Mr. Clingan claims that “the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside Christianity.”
Neither statement is correct. Given the claiim that “the doctrine of grace is completely absent,” it would only take one statement from LDS scripture, sermon, hymn, or personal testimony to demonstrate the error of the first claim. Such statements are easy to find, if one is willing to actually look, rather than simply proclaim one’s authority based on where one lives. For example, from the Book of Mormon, a book I have really read:
“Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.” (2 Nephi 2:8–9)
For a detailed discussion, see here:
http://www.farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=624
Furthermore, the claim that “a reward based on works” is “outside of Christianity” seems to me at odds with the opinion expressed here (and elsewhere) by one Jesus of Nazareth:
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” (Matthew 16:27)
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
posted July 2, 2007 at 11:39 am
Dear Chad,
You quoted me here: “These links will help to educate those of you who actually care whether you look like fools when speaking about Mormons. The rest of you just keep spouting ignorance, it really helps us Mormons look intelligent when compared to you.”
Then you say:
Chad: I’ve gotten all my information about Mormon Doctrine from The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and The King Follet Funeral Discourse.
Chad: I consider it pretty obvious that when you compare these writings with the Bible, I use NASB and ESV, that Mormonism is not Christianity.
Mike’s Reply: And I consider it pretty obvious that when I compare the LDS writings with the Bible that Mormonism is Christianity.
Would you like to quote some specific support from the Bible for your assertion?
my e-mail: paisme@hotmail.com
our blog: truthrestored.townhall.com
posted July 2, 2007 at 11:48 am
You are confusing salvation and rewards after salvation. Mormons believe that salvation is wrapped up in works. Christians believe salvation is a free gift (read the book of Romans).
Mormons will quote James 2:14-17 as their evidence that works are required for faith. What is at issue is the ordering. Works do not produce faith. Works are not required for faith. Faith is given as a free gift and works are simply the outward manifestation of faith. If you have faith the works will follow. The opposite is not true. If works are required for salvation then man may have something to boast about before God. “Look at all the wonderful things I did, God!” This is in direct conflict with Romans.
posted July 2, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Entire books have been written on this subject by authors far more eloquent, concise, and knowledgeable than myself. Thus I provide this link : http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm , which is an entire online book that addresses the differences between biblical Christianity and Mormonism complete with masses of quotations from official LDS scripture, publications, and authors.
posted July 2, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Ralph Clingan @ 7.14 “the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith”
Bull. The doctrine is that we are saved by grace after all we can do. Why is it that Mormonism’s biggest critics never know anything about it? Don’t you Christians ever bother informing yourselves?
No, of course not. You Christians never bother learning anything about religion, do you. All you can ever do is sing your sappy-clappy songs, rabbit about how God loves evrybody so much, congrtulate yourselves that you’re saved, then go off and persecute somebody.
Christians! No, Mormons are not Christians, because Christians are the biggest morons walking the planet! They should be re-classified as apes, they’re so stupid!
What does a Christian believe, exactly? That for no good reason, God created planet earth for a blink in the eons of time, and peopled it for a mere blip. If we all behave ourselves for that blip’s duration, we all get to sit around in heaven doing jack all eternity.
And no Christian ever asks “What’s the point?” You say Mormon doctrine is stupid? At least Mormons have a reason for why God would be doing all this!
And then there’s the commandments. What Christian church actually teaches people to keep them? What Christian church doesn’t break them whenever it’s convenient? When you’re not abusing your choir boys, you’re appointing homosexuals to be your priests! Of all the tedious, mindless hours I’ve endured in Christian churches, I’ve never heard a priest teach that Christians should follow the commandments! And their followers never do. And now they’re all over this board, lying, misrepresenting, insulting, doing anything other than living the golden rule! You Christians ever heard of the golden rule? No, of course you haven’t. Jesus taught it, so why would you have?
But there’s one thing you really know how to do, isn’t there? Whenever anyone disagrees with you, dares to suggest that you’re wrong, you know exactly how to kill him, don’t you? Not just Mormons, but anybody! The Crusades, the Inquisition, the English Civil War, the Conquistadores — the Christians have slaughtered more people than Hitler!
Catholics murdered Protestants, Protestants murdered Catholics. Protestants murdered other Protestants because they weren’t the right kind of Protestant. And Catholics weren’t against murdering other Catholics, if they weren’t the right kind of Catholic, or just because it was convenient. Then when you couldn’t find anybody else to carve up, you’d all go off and have a Jew-murder party.
And heaven forfend you execute them humanely. You couldn’t ever just shoot or hang them, like you did with ordinary people, could you? No, because they were Christians, you had to murder them in the cruellest ways you could think up. You should read some of those martyrs’ histories you’re all so keen on publishing! Burning them alive, cutting out their vital organs alive, mutilating them alive.
As a religion, you’ve got a lot of blood on your hands.
And you Christians have the effrontery to moralize to us Mormons! You Christians have nothing, NOTHING to lecture us about. Pull the beam from your own eye, you hypocrites! I thank God I’m not one of you, because if I were, I would hang my head in shame.
posted July 2, 2007 at 1:48 pm
“Saved by grace after all we can do” is a Mormon doctrine. The “after all we can do” part is an added caveat used to support works-righteousness. It is the same as the caveat “in the flesh” that is added to Jesus being the only begotten son.
these would be indications that one is NOT a Christian.
this speaks of the Mormon doctrine that all other churches are apostate.
God created the world for His glory. Thats the point. A Christian should know that. He didn’t create the world no reason. It is for His glory.
Mormon doctrine is not stupid. You are confusing someone saying the doctrine is incorrect with someone calling it stupid.
You’ve been listening to bad Christian teaching. The 10 Commandments are very important and Christians should strive always to keep them. I’ve heard plenty of sound preaching that stresses the importance of the 10 Commandments. The Commandments are what let us know about sin. They are a schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.
You are also massively confusing liberal Christian theology with Christianity as a whole. Some of us DON’T have choirboys. Some of us DON’T elect homosexual priests or pastors. Some of us DO have pastors that talk about sin, righteousness, eternal judgement, and the 10 Commandments. Hey, some of us even Do follo the Bible. Imagine that!
This is almost word-for-word an argument used by atheists. Its like saying that if a black guy steals my car, then all black people must be car thiefs. If some Christians do bad things, then all Christians must be bad. Flawed logic at best.
And heaven forfend you execute them humanely. You couldn’t ever just shoot or hang them, like you did with ordinary people, could you? No, because they were Christians, you had to murder them in the cruellest ways you could think up. You should read some of those martyrs’ histories you’re all so keen on publishing! Burning them alive, cutting out their vital organs alive, mutilating them alive.
i have no idea whats going on here.
More flawed logic. Some people who called themselves Christians did bad things so therefore everyone but Mormons who call themselves Christians are bad.
posted July 2, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Chad: “Christians believe salvation is a free gift”
Or more accurately, Protestants of Lutheran adherence believe salvation is through grace. Protestants of Calvinist inclinations will uphold the salvation through works.
Chad: “Saved by grace after all we can do is a Mormon doctrine.”
I think Mormon and Angry was responding to the line from another post that “the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith.” That is quite definitely (to use Mormon and Angry’s expression) “Bull”.
While I wouldn’t have expressed it in quite the same way, I largely agree with Mormon and Angry. I despair of Christians! Of course some of them are respectable, sincere people. But as a whole, all I can see is division and dispute, confusion, abdication of responsibility, a disastrous lack of leadership, and a significant amount of overt profiteering.
It’s not an attractive religion.
posted July 2, 2007 at 2:42 pm
This is 100% incorrect. I am of the Calvinist tradition and every serious Calvinist I have ever heard would be appalled at the thought of salvation through works. Again, salvation through works is in DIRECT conflict with the book of Romans.
posted July 2, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I only read the first points and was struck by how untrue this article was at the onset.
Joseph Smith (church founder) was asked once what the church believes in and what he responded to has become known as the thirteen articles of faith. Every Mormon child is encouraged to learn them all word for word. The very first article of faith is:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.
There it is, we believe in the Holy Trinity. We also believe Jesus Christ to be his ONLY begotten son.
And, though not presented in that article of faith, we believe that Jesus Christ is our redeemer and that no man can return to Heaven without His grace.
Bottom line… We believe in Jesus Christ, we believe he died for our sins, we believe he died so we could live again, we believe he raised from the dead, we believe he will return again (2nd coming), we believe he is the only begotten of the Father (God), we believe we will be saved through his grace, we believe that we should strive to come closer to knowing and understanding him, we believe he is the only one who can save us (no other, not even Joseph Smith by a LOOOONG shot), we believe he started a church, and we believe we are members of that church. So, which part of this faith makes us non-CHRISTian?
posted July 2, 2007 at 3:39 pm
A major part would be the famous quote by an LDS Apostle Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” Thats not Christian. Neither is the eternal progression of God…the doctrine that God is an exalted man (like we can become). Neither is the idea that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit-brothers.
posted July 2, 2007 at 3:58 pm
James Duckett,
I have not been paying much attention to this side of it. Most of my participation has been in the comments unders OSC’s article. So forgive me for jumping in a bit late, here.
You said:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.
There it is, we believe in the Holy Trinity. We also believe Jesus Christ to be his ONLY begotten son.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity doesn’t just stop there, but let’s test what you have.
1) You say that God is eternal. But I have read (from Mormon sources) that God was once a man, and that he was not eternally God. Is this true, or not true?
2) Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all One God in Three Persons? This is a basic part of the Trinitarian doctrine. In the past, Mormons have denied this. Are you now saying that they are in fact One God in Three Persons? If you do not say this, then you are denying the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity.
3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God, and the Word became flesh? Do you believe the Jesus Christ was also eternal? If you deny that Christ is eternal, you deny an essential piece of the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is extremely important that you answer these honestly and without evasion. If you reject the essential doctrines of Christianity, you reject Christianity. You may think that Jesus Christ started your Church, but if it is counter to the Christian Church’s that have been around for 2000 years, it clearly isn’t Christianity.
Christianity means something. The things that it means are at odds with Mormonism. If the essentials of Christianity has correct doctrines, then Mormonism has false doctrines. If, on the other hand, Jesus Christ actually did start the Mormon Church, and if the Mormon Church is, in fact, right about all doctrines, then the Mormon Church would be of Christ–but it still wouldn’t be Christian. If the Mormon doctrines are right, Christianity is a false religion. Why they are so determined to be counted among a religion they believe to be false is completely flabbergasting to me. Unless, of course, they are enemies of Truth? And allies of confusion?
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Anon @ 2.42: “I’m simply looking for Truth.”
And the truth is Christianity?
It was Jesus Christ who said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and as Mormon and Angry pointed out rather forcefully, Christianity’s legacy is a long and grotesque one of bickering, bigotry, persecution, repression, power-broking, corruption and greed.
It’s true that Protestantism emerged as a backlash against the corruption of the Roman church. But then the Protestants started behaving just like the Catholics.
Most of America’s largest churches date back to a married king of England with a roving eye, and a ruthless and ambitious woman determined to stop at nothing to become queen. Some foundation for a church!
And from the Church of England has grown the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?
I cannot believe that the man who taught “Love one another as I have loved you” will own the institution responsible for so much reprehensible (and decidedly non-Christian) behavior, for so many centuries. Without a doubt, any authority his church may have originally held must have been withdrawn when it started being abused so badly. And without the authority of Jesus Christ, it’s not going to make a jot of difference whether you’re “Christian” or Hari Khrishna.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Chad says:
“You are confusing salvation and rewards after salvation. Mormons believe that salvation is wrapped up in works. Christians believe salvation is a free gift (read the book of Romans).”
You are changing the subject, plus presuming to tell me what Mormons believe. Neither tack is productive. I was responding to Mr. Clingan’s claim that “the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside Christianity.”"
Such claims misrepresent my faith. The quote and link I offered were sufficient to demonstrate that with respect to Clingan’s claim. In my opinion, your claim here also misrepresents my faith. On the topic of what I believe, I happen to be the pre-eminent authority, having lived with my beliefs for 53 years. I am also well placed to consider LDS belief, I have attended LDS services in three countries, and at least 15 US states. I have read extensively in LDS scripture and scholarship, and I have published a few dozen articles in a variety LDS Journals. Please do me the kindness of letting me explain my own faith. I would not presume to explain yours.
Regarding your “Mormons will quote James 2:14-17 as their evidence that works are required for faith…” etc. you haven’t talked with me, and I would suggest not predicting what I would say or think. You clearly do not know and have demonstrated no interest in finding out. And for that matter, when I see a discussion turning into a “by the numbers” recitation of shallow cliches, rather than a genuine inquiry into the important sources and studies, I see that life is too short to waste further time.
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I think you are getting mixed up in identifying Christianity with some of its supposed followers.
If I say I’m a Mormon and then kill 12 people, you can’t say Mormonism is bad or its false based on my actions. I may have not even really been a Mormon.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Response to Anon @ 3.58:
1) You say that God is eternal. But I have read (from Mormon sources) that God was once a man, and that he was not eternally God. Is this true, or not true?
Yes. Before men become men, they exist as spirits. And before they become spirits, they exist as intelligences. Intelligences are eternal.
2) Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all One God in Three Persons?
No. They are three separate personages, one in purpose only.
3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God, and the Word became flesh?
I do wish Christians would stop talking jargon, and just call a spade a spade. I know you’re quoting John, but what do you mean by it? Do I believe that Christ existed? Yes. Do I believe that he died to atone for our sins? Yes. Do I believe that through His grace, we will be saved? Yes.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Anon @ 4.19: “I think you are getting mixed up in identifying Christianity with some of its supposed followers. If I say I’m a Mormon and then kill 12 people, you can’t say Mormonism is bad or its false based on my actions.”
I could if the murders were fully sanctioned, supported and encouraged by the church. The Crusades and the Inquisition, the foundation of the Church of Englandand with it the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians — these were not the private actions of individuals.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I would be very glad to let you explain your faith. I am in no way trying to silence you at all. I was simply quoting from your own scripture which, I would hope, is what you would be a pre-eminent authority on.
If you would like to make an attempt at explaining my faith, by all means, go ahead. I would not find this offensive in the least bit. I would simply correct you where you make mistakes.
I wasn’t “predicting what you would say” at all. I was simply providing the scripture that Mormons most commonly cite to defend their doctrine.
For the third time, I provide this link: http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm
Here is an entire book filled with Mormon doctrine and theology, straight from Mormon scripture, publications, journals, and authors, contrasted with the teachings of the Bible. If you want discussion of important sources and studies and theology, there you go. Again, I’m not going to repost this book in this discussion board as it is too long and it is not my material. If you want to learn, go read it. I can’t read it for you.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I think the following might be a valuable test of who is a follower of Christ.
John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Wizard of ID quotes: Anon @ 2.42: “I’m simply looking for Truth.”
I would like it to be clear that this was not me. I have been posting under the name “Anon,” but this quote came from someone who did not use any name at all.
Wizard of ID continues: “And the truth is Christianity?”
Why, yes. I believe so. You give us a grossly incomplete understanding of the evils that have occurred in our Church, but you fail to remember that Jesus Christ warned us about such things happening in His Church. The fact that evil men and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” have existed in any given church does not say anything to the truth of that faith. This is just a version of ad hominem on steroids. (After all, Mormons are perfect, aren’t they?)
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Interesting how Mormons often find themselves arguing alongside atheists in things like this. With regards to the Inquisition and Crusades, you might want to talk to a Catholic. I’m a Protestant.
If I’m a pastor of a church, and I tell my church to go kill 12 people, and they do, you still can’t say that Christianity is bad or false based upon this.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Wizard of ID, thank you for the straight forward and honest answers to my questions. The result shows that you do not believe in the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which means that you believe Christianity is wrong. If you believe Christianity is wrong, you certainly aren’t counted among them.
If the True Christ started Mormonism, then Christianity is wrong. If that is the case, I hope someday to be disabused of my error some day. But if I am disabused of it, I will not join in the confusion and deception that would be caused by claiming I was Christian.
posted July 2, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Wizard of ID quoted: Anon @ 4.19: “I think you are getting mixed up in identifying Christianity with some of its supposed followers. If I say I’m a Mormon and then kill 12 people, you can’t say Mormonism is bad or its false based on my actions.”
Again – this was not me. Would you please do me the favor of tagging those as “anonymous” instead of just “Anon,” WoID?
Thanks.
posted July 2, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Oh. And by the way, Mormonism probably would not even exist if not for the Crusades. We would most likely all be writing in Turkish or Arabic right now if not for the Crusades halting the bloody and ruthless advance of the Muslims.
You’re welcome.
Remember Lepanto!
posted July 2, 2007 at 5:26 pm
4.44: “With regards to the Inquisition and Crusades, you might want to talk to a Catholic. I’m a Protestant”
Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?
posted July 2, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Bah. Potay-toe Potah-toe. It’s all mythology anyway. If the Mormons say they’re Christian, then they’re Christian.
Why does it matter in the long run when it’s all invented by people?
posted July 2, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Which came first: Trinitarianism or Christianity? The answer to this is the answer to whether Mormons are Christians.
posted July 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm
After a thoughtful reply to a previous post, Roper’s reply was “*Right, but you still ain’t a Christian.” Well, that seems to be the trump card in this discussion, which makes it all so pointless. Dr. Mohler and the rest will continue to play that trump card over and over, it doesn’t make a difference. I’m sad to see the level of negativity or even downright slander here when it comes to some of these comments about Mormonism. While some of the descriptions of Mormon belief presented here are fairly done, the great majority are embellishments or pure fabrication. If you know you have the truth, then why invent lies to disprove someone else’s religion?
posted July 2, 2007 at 6:43 pm
>> 1) You say that God is eternal. But I have read (from Mormon sources) that God was once a man, and that he was not eternally God. Is this true, or not true?
) on being followers of Christ.
God is and was eternal. That is all that is important. Will you otherwise dictate to me the eternal nature of God?
>> 2) Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all One God in Three Persons?
Exactly!! Three persons. Each an entirely different person. Single and one in purpose and mission (to save our souls).
>> In the past, Mormons have denied this.
I just quoted our first doctrine of faith. We have always believed in three separate beings and intelligences as it is one of the biggest things learned through Joseph Smith’s “first vision” when he saw God and Jesus standing side by side.
>> 3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God, and the Word became flesh?
Okay, I’ll admit that I’m not 100% sure about the interpretation of this scripture. So in answering this, I may not be answering your question. The Word being the Word of God? Sure, Jesus did deliver God’s plan to his chosen people (the Jews) who rejected it and then it was delivered to the rest of God’s children on Earth (the Gentiles). the Word (Jesus) was with God and is God. Of course. Jesus is eternal. The Word became flesh? Isn’t that what the first half of the New Testament is all about?
>> Do you believe the Jesus Christ was also eternal?
Whole heartedly.
>> If you reject the essential doctrines of Christianity, you reject Christianity.
Let’s be honest here. Many of the Christian Church’s doctrines are clearly and plainly not followed by many religions openly accepted as being Christian Faith. So why is Mormonism the most heavily judged? The answer is because we believe in modern revelation and the Book of Mormon. But I would challenge you to tell me which church actually follows all of the doctrines outlines by Christ? If so, please name it. OSC’s argument still stands… who has the moral right to dictate who is and is not a Christian. Even CS Lewis argued this in the opening of his book, “Mere Christianity.”
>> You may think that Jesus Christ started your Church, but if it is counter to the Christian Church’s that have been around for 2000 years, it clearly isn’t Christianity.
Oh, I believe with all my heart that Christ started the LDS church. But that is what faith is and I’m not going to debate faith. Faith is something you have to find out for yourself.
>> Christianity means something.
Darn tootin’!!!! It is why the LDS religion is proud to call ourselves a member of it.
>> The things that it means are at odds with Mormonism.
I would disagree with that. I believe our fundamental beliefs are the same and that the anti-Mormon movement is lead by those who are sickened to see tithes come our direction. I mean, have you read much of the anti-Mormon literature out there? It is so mean-spirited and untruthful.
I mean, why would any Christian denomination persecute a church with our values? We believe that Christ should be the center of our lives. We believe the Bible to be the word of God and that the Book of Mormon does nothing but further attest of Christ’s greatness and helps us to understand him better (come on, who doesn’t want that?!?!?). We believe in family and fighting evil on earth. We have sooooo much in common that I am saddened that the leaders of most other churches want nothing to do with us when, together, we could accomplish so much good on this Earth and help others turn to Christ.
>> If, on the other hand, Jesus Christ actually did start the Mormon Church, and if the Mormon Church is, in fact, right about all doctrines, then the Mormon Church would be of Christ–but it still wouldn’t be Christian.
Wow, that made no sense whatsoever. Sorry….
>> If the Mormon doctrines are right, Christianity is a false religion.
Not at all. Not in the least. How could any follower of Christ be false no matter what official religion they follow.
>> Why they are so determined to be counted among a religion they believe to be false is completely flabbergasting to me.
You said it yourself, because being a Christian means something. We pride ourselves (the good pride, of course
>> Unless, of course, they are enemies of Truth? And allies of confusion?
Actually, now I’m confused…. o.O
I’d like to address a few other things I’ve read above (I’ll admit, I haven’t read much):
1) The LDS church does NOT believe that men will be saved by their works. The roots of that belief point towards pride. Sadly, many members believe it. It amazes me how many people of the faith can listen to our twice-yearly held conference and still believe that. It is through the Grace of Christ we are saved. The bible says so, the Book of Mormon says so, the leaders of the LDS church says so. Any LDS member who says otherwise needs to do some research. I’ll admit, I was once a believer of this doctrine. Works and acts is a means of doing God’s work but it isn’t going to be what saves you. It will only save you in the sense that it helps convert you into the person who wants to be saved.
2) There seemed to be a bit of a debate on the truth of the LDS church. People throwing scripture out there backing up and refuting the truth of Mormonism.
Yeah right!
Okay, Mormonism can not be proven or even disproven just as the same with Christianity, Judism, Muslim, and even Athiesm. It all comes down to faith. Why do you believe Christianity to be right and Islam to be false? Faith. Not because you worked some math problem out and it came to Truth = Southern Baptists. Again, this is another thing we have in common. Followers of the LDS faith became followers by hope, prayer and faith. I bet most followers believe the same. I am enthralled by faith and have asked many people (both LDS and non-LDS) how they obtained their faith. Again, the stories are VERY, VERY similar though I will admit I haven’t had the opportunity to ask people outside of Christianity (the Jews I’ve asked mostly answered because they were born into it and tradition… but I haven’t asked many). So debating what is true and false is silly by its very nature. You can’t intellectualize faith.
Let’s stick with the real debate… what and who gets to define a Christian?
posted July 2, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not Christian. Read Dr. Walter Martin’s book, Kingdom of the Cults, to read they aren’t. Also check out the Christian Research Institute.
posted July 2, 2007 at 7:04 pm
This discussion has become painfully complicated.
The Bible states that the disciples of Christ were called Christians. Who cares what the creeds say? (Different denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Mormon or Catholic) certainly don’t adhere to the same creeds. If they did there would be no distinction between the denominations.)
“And the disciples [of Christ] were called Christians” (Acts 11:26)
The Book of Mormon defines “Christian” similarly:
“all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ” (Alma 46:15)
If I am a Christian, let me be known by my fruit. If I take upon myself the name of Christ through baptism and spiritual re-birth it is certainly between me and Him. I’m sorry, but Dr R Albert Mohler and his creeds, philosophy and restrictions have little to do with it.
In the end I believe Christ will judge our “Christianity” with the same judgment and limitations we dish out upon others and their Christianity. God help us if we close the boarders of our sandbox. It just isn’t a Christian principle.
posted July 2, 2007 at 7:18 pm
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not Christian. Read Dr. Walter Martin’s book, Kingdom of the Cults, to read they aren’t. Also check out the Christian Research Institute.
So Dr. Martin is the authoritative figure on who is Christian or not?
posted July 2, 2007 at 7:54 pm
No Jesus and the Bible are the authoritative figures on who is Christian and Mormon doctrines teach things that are opposite Jesus and the Bible. End of story.
posted July 2, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Who gets to define “Christian”?
Jesus Christ Himself gets to define “Christian”.
According to Jesus Christ for someone to be a Christian it is of utmost importance to know who He is. In John 8 Jesus Christ said, “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Who does Christ say will die in his sins? He who “does not believe that I am He.”
So the questions is: who is it that we must believe Jesus to be in order to not die in our sins?
Let us take u a look at who the Bible says He is:
John 1:1-3,14,12 clearly states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made… and the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us… as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God” ***
Phillipians 3:20 calls Him, “The Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ”
These verses tell us clearly that Jesus Christ is not only the Savior of the world but He is also the God and Creator of everything that has ever been made. When it says that “everything was made through Him” it means that EVERYTHING was made through Him. There is nothing that exists (whether spirit-beings, demons, thrones, principilaties etc) that is eternal rather everything was “made” through Christ and for Christ. If anyone believes that their spirit is eternal or that other eternal things exist that were not “made through Him” then that person is contradicting this Scripture.
Lets take a look at what else the Bible says about Him:
Isaiah 45:21 says, “Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me.”
Here the Scripture says that there is NO OTHER GOD besides Him. If anyone believes that there are other gods besides the 1 true God of the Bible that person is in grave error for the Scripture makes it abundantly clear that “there is none besides” Him.
In Isaiah 43:10 The LORD says about Himself, “Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.” According to this Scripture not only was there no god formed before Jesus Christ but there will never be one formed after Him. If someone believes that they will one day become a god they are flat wrong according to this Scripture.
Psalm 90:2 declares, “Before the mountains were brought forth,Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” This Scripture declares that God is the Creator of the world and everything in it. It also makes it clear that He is “from everlasting to everlasting” aka eternal.
The point is this: If a person does not believe that Jesus Christ is whom the Bible declares He is… that is… the one true and only eternal Creator (of all things) and Savior God who became flesh, who died on behalf of sinners, and rose on the third day… that person is not a Christian. Rather, unless this person repents, he will die in his sins and perish.
****Of note: Contrary to popular belief (and Mormon teaching, I think) we are not all “children of God”, rather we must be given the right to BECOME children of God through faith in the Word become flesh, Jesus Christ.
posted July 2, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Read the beginning about Joesph Smith and how he “found” these tablets in America and started the Mor(m)on religion. You decide for yourself.
posted July 3, 2007 at 12:52 am
For a biography of Joseph Smith I recommend “Rough Stone Rolling” by Richard Bushman.
I also recommend the Book of Mormon. If you are going to bash one’s religion, at least have read their writings.
I also agree that one posted earlier, Trinitarianism came *after* Christianity, and as such has no authority on this debate.
posted July 3, 2007 at 12:56 am
There’s an awful lot of bad blood in some of these blogs, both from non-Mormons (who think the Mormons are in error) as well as from some Mormons (who are seeting with resentment).
There’s probably no way to reconcile some of these differences. Good people can differ on subjects of great importance to them.
But good people don’t have to denigrate themselves, or their faith, by taking shots at one another. Mormons consider themselves Christians. Other folks think them in error. Some go so far as to write them out of the list of Christian faiths.
Fine.
But even when we disagree, we should remember the teachings of Jesus, because Jesus – while vocal about his own differences with others – was still a loving, generous, patient, tolerant figure.
Let’s not let go of our humanity in the effort to win an argument that can’t be won. At the end of the day, when the other person persists in disagreeing, maybe it’s time to move on to other issues – like what’s worth sharing.
Mormons and non-Mormons make great neighbors when each as enough respect for the other to let the other be who they are.
posted July 3, 2007 at 2:04 am
Growing up a member of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. I was always taught Jesus Christ was my saviour and that he died on the cross for my sin. I accept this and believe this. I was never taught anything different. I was taught that I must repent and be baptized in the name of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost in the name of Jesus Christ. I was confirmed a member of the church in the name of Jesus Christ. I partook of the sacrement every sunday which we(Mormons) commemorate the sacrafice Jesus Christ made for our sins. This sacrament is blessed in the name of Jesus Christ. We opened and closed every meeting with a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. I remember Christ as being the focal point of my Mormon life. Of course there were other elements to the belief that differ from other faiths. But I do not understand in my wildest imaginings how anyone could not consider LDS people Christian. Although I am no longer a member of the LDS faith. I am grateful for the teachings that taught me a love for my Heavenly Father and my Saviour Jesus Christ. In my opinion you really can not find a more Christ like people than those in the LDS church.
Just take a look at this blog… How Christ like are your remarks?
How Christ like were the LDS remarks? Christ charged us in the Bible “To Love One Another As I Have Loved You” All Christians in my opinion should give this a try. Respect our differences and Love Each Other.
I pray that Heavenly Father Bless You All
In the name of My Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ Amen
posted July 3, 2007 at 2:13 am
“Read the beginning about Joesph Smith and how he “found” these tablets in America and started the Mor(m)on religion. You decide for yourself.”
As compared to the Wedding at Cana, Feeding the Five Thousand, Healing the Sick, Making the Lame to Walk, Restoring Sight to the Blind, or, gosh darn it, atoning for mankind’s sins, dying on the cross and resurrecting himself.
But then you Christians never were too hot on the faith thing, were you? Much better at just holding hands and singing “Kumbaya,” before heading out for a good ol’ persecution and murder session.
I will repeat what I said yesterday:
No, Mormons are not Christians, because Christians are the biggest morons walking the planet! They should be re-classified as apes, they’re so stupid!
What does a Christian believe, exactly? That for no good reason, God created planet earth for a blink in the eons of time, and peopled it for a mere blip. If we all behave ourselves for that blip’s duration, we all get to sit around in heaven doing jack all eternity.
And no Christian ever asks “What’s the point?” You say Mormon doctrine is stupid? At least Mormons have a reason for why God would be doing all this!
And then there’s the commandments. What Christian church actually teaches people to keep them? What Christian church doesn’t break them whenever it’s convenient? When you’re not abusing your choir boys, you’re appointing homosexuals to be your priests! Of all the tedious, mindless hours I’ve endured in Christian churches, I’ve never heard a priest teach that Christians should follow the commandments! And their followers never do. And now they’re all over this board, lying, misrepresenting, insulting, doing anything other than living the golden rule! You Christians ever heard of the golden rule? No, of course you haven’t. Jesus taught it, so why would you have?
But there’s one thing you really know how to do, isn’t there? Whenever anyone disagrees with you, dares to suggest that you’re wrong, you know exactly how to kill him, don’t you? Not just Mormons, but anybody! The Crusades, the Inquisition, the English Civil War, the Conquistadores — the Christians have slaughtered more people than Hitler!
Catholics murdered Protestants, Protestants murdered Catholics. Protestants murdered other Protestants because they weren’t the right kind of Protestant. Then when you couldn’t find anybody else to carve up, you’d all go off and have a Jew-murder party.
And heaven forfend you execute them humanely. You couldn’t ever just shoot or hang them, like you did with ordinary people, could you? No, because they were Christians, you had to murder them in the cruellest ways you could think up. You should read some of those martyrs’ histories you’re all so keen on publishing! Burning them alive, cutting out their vital organs alive, mutilating them alive.
As a religion, you’ve got a lot of blood on your hands.
And you Christians have the effrontery to moralize to us Mormons! You Christians have nothing, NOTHING to lecture us about. Pull the beam from your own eye, you hypocrites! I thank God I’m not one of you, because if I were, I would hang my head in shame.
Posted by: Mormon and Angry | July 2, 2007 1:07 PM
posted July 3, 2007 at 2:38 am
Jesus Christ and His Apostles have already defined what a Christian is. Christians were first called Christians in the book of Acts and Christians are defined all through the New Testament of the Bible. Read all about it!
posted July 3, 2007 at 3:49 am
Mormon and Angry has a few OK points but makes them quite rudely. Mormon and Angry, as a member of the LDS faith, you are embarrassing me. Please try to be more civil.
posted July 3, 2007 at 3:49 am
One of Jesus’ Apostles, Peter, taught what one must do to demonstrate faith in Jesus Christ and to take upon them His name:
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:37-40)
posted July 3, 2007 at 10:16 am
I still don’t understand why many Mormons in this discussion refuse to interact with the texts of the Bible that are in direct conflict with Mormon scriptures.
All I see are arguments against Christianity, which is ironic since apparently Mormons are offended at not being included in Christianity.
Mormons on this board have been so quick to point out bloodshed and division in Christianity while in the next sentence being outraged that someone says they aren’t Christian.
I personally see many threads of inconsistency like this throughout the entire Mormon religion and I’d like to see a Mormon actually address any of these instead of just using arguments against Christianity.
posted July 3, 2007 at 10:59 am
*** …we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.
We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.
-Dr. Albert Mohler ***
It’s oh-so-easy to conclude the LDS Church isn’t Christian when you’re deliberately cherry-picking the definition of “Christian” that provides the most help to your thesis. It’s also intellectually dishonest. Rather than choosing the very narrowest definition he can, let’s see Dr. Mohler write another article using a broader, more inclusive definition of Christianity to de-Christianize the Mormon Church. After all, if we adhere to the strictest interpretation of the definition Dr. Mohler chose – “historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy” – the only valid organ of Christianity becomes the Roman Catholic Church because all other branches of the faith are, historically and traditionally, heterodox.
posted July 3, 2007 at 11:34 am
My prayer for everyone else is that you will not go to enemies to ask about any faith but go to that faith and ask them. If you want to know about being a Catholic, go to the Catholics. If you want to know about Judiasm talk to a Rabi. Protestants? Seek out a reverend, pastor, minister, whoever is in a position to tell you the truth. If you want to know about Mormons then go to A Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (EVERYONE IS WELCOME), call a mormon friend, talk to our Missionaries, or visit our website.
There are several Mormons responding to things on both Mr. Card’s and Dr. Mohler’s comments. By going directly to Mormons, I have at least three different stories. Some insist that they do not believe in the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity. Some say they most decidedly do. Some say that God and Jesus were always Gods and eternally so. Others say that they weren’t. The sources from LDS that I’ve seen seem to be clear that they are not Trinitarians, but in some places they seem to claim they are.
There is a distinct postmodern approach in the Mormon arguments. They believe that people determine the nature of things when they use words. But that is wrong. Things have a nature unto themselves, and words refer to that nature. Christianity has had a nature–a very well understood nature–for two thousand years. There are essential qualities and essential things that make up what Christianity *is*. Not what it has been “defined” to be, but what it *is*. The postmodern approach of making words mean what you want them to mean instead of using them to refer to something real makes discussion incoherent, and it reduces words to useless things. It is Orwellian double-speak, and it is deceptive nonsense.
No one “gets to define” Christianity. It is what it is. Even the Pope doesn’t define it. He is subject to it.
I really don’t know what to respond to any more. It seems like a completely futile effort to communicate with the Mormons (at least here.) I am left with the impression that Mormons do not care about Truth or meaning. That it is more important to them that they undermine the meaning of Christianity so that they can get away with saying they are Christians, too, and be better positioned to convert the less studied who are deceived into thinking they are simply becoming another kind of Christian. There is a pernicious quality to this discussion, and I think I have reached the end of my participation in it. (Of all the Mormon interlocutors here, I mostly respect Mormon and Angry–in spite of his disgust for my faith–for admitting he is not Christian. His converts will be *honestly* gained. And if the One True Christ actually did start Mormonism–more power to him.)
posted July 3, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I pretty much echo the statements above by Anon.
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
It is nearly impossible to pin down a Mormon’s beliefs. The ones that I have spoken to on these threads simply refuse to give a straight answer. I even tried the “Answer these questions with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ approach”, to no avail! (An approah I myself will eagerly ascribe to if need be.) Again, if there is a single Mormon out there willing to answer my questions please let me know.
Here are some questions that I would like answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’:
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
2) Is Jesus Chris eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
Those are just some of the questions. Please answer them with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I would really appreciate.
I take it as a sign that Mormonism is a cult if these questions cannot be answered in a straight forward and honest way. To be fair, I myself, am willing to answer these questions if anyone required me to. Thank you.
posted July 3, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Anon, you’re dealing with several different Mormons, who are not coordinating their arguments, who have varying degrees of skill at making an argument, and who have varying degrees of skill at understanding the points of others. This is probably where the confusion is coming from.
So, to crystalize the answers that you raised:
1) Mormonism does not believe in the three-in-one concept of god, but that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are entirely separate entities.
2) The Father and Jesus Christ are eternal in that have always existed and will always exist. However, they have not always held the god status they now hold. they are also eternal in that they will continue to hold their god status for ever more.
And yes, I realise another entire blog could be devoted to arguing each of those points. I’m not going to try to explain those arguments right now.
posted July 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Amid all this fuss about whether or not Mormons are Christians, I wonder whether it’s worth asking to what extent Christians could be defined as Christians.
After all, Christ said, “By their fruits shall ye know them,” and the fruits of Christianity (as Mormon and Angry explained in no uncertain terms) have historically been dreadful: a long and terrible tale of biggotry, persecution, repression, war, pillage, thousands of executions of barbaric cruelty, power struggles, greed, corruption, self-glorification and naked profiteering.
Today, all I see of Christianity is division, strife, clannish cover-ups, a disastrous lack of leadership, and still more naked profiteering.
Is this what Christ wanted? Would he recognise the Christian churches for the institution He founded? I doubt it.
Someone rightly argued on a earlier post that one cannot hold an entire institution responsible for the actions of a few individuals. Yet we’re not talking about a handful of incidents, but ongoing, habitual, willful, action and policy, fully sanctioned, supported, encouraged by church authorities of the highest rank, across tens (or even hundreds) or thousands of occasions stretching over a dozen or more centuries. As Mormon and Angry said “As a religion, there’s a lot of blood on your hands.”
I cannot believe Christ would credit an institution that has so abused His name to countenance the execution of pure evil and overt ambition. Any authority the Christian church may once have had has to have been withdrawn. It’s true that many have, with the best of intentions, attempted to reform the Christian churches, but this is pointless since Christ taught that “an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit.” Christ’s church must, can only be, restored by Jesus Christ Himself.
Mormonism, of course, is the only institution that claims such a restoration.
There can be no doubt that you “Christians” constitute a religion in that you conform to a common set of doctrines. But since those doctrines generally have more to do with Plato and Socrates than Jesus Christ, are those doctrines even Christian?
From that point of view, it can be legitimately claimed that Mormons are indeed Christians, since our doctrines are those revealed directly by Jesus Christ. Christians would perhaps be more honestly called “Platonics.”
posted July 3, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Amid all this fuss about whether or not Mormons are Christians, I wonder whether it’s worth asking to what extent Christians could be defined as Christians.
It is, indeed, a question worth asking. There may very well be groups who call themselves “Christian,” who are not.
There is also little doubt that every denomination and every person finds himself not acting in the loving way Christ taught. But we all know that is the case, and we all know that it is one of the reasons we desperately need to be saved. So making issue of it doesn’t make sense to me in a discussion that it trying to understand just what Christianity IS. There is plenty of “unchristian” behavior on all sides to spotlight if we want to play that game. But it is irrelevant. What it is, and how they should act are two different things.
Finally, you can’t have it both ways. Either you are seperate from Christianity, or you are just one voice among the thousands who make claims about their position in Christianity. Your claims of “restoration” are not unique in the slightest, and it is just one more group saying “we’re special, so come to us instead of them.”
Like I’ve said several times now–I would be very introspective and full of concern if I found myself on the side that was playing games with meaning, instead of trying to discern it.
posted July 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I personally do not believe that a Mormons are christians either.
What they beleive and what the bible says, proves that point.
posted July 3, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Yet we’re not talking about a handful of incidents,…
No, but you are talking in grossly incomplete and convenient terms. There is much more to the history of things than what you are saying. Mormons have there fair share of murderers and pedophiles, and they are not without violence. They also (conveniently) have a much shorter history from which to highlight.
I will not downplay any of the horrors of the actions of some Christians. However, there are certain circumstances that have been blown way out of proportion, and there is a much larger history of how Christianity brought peace and prosperity to this world. To simply characterize them the way you have is simple-minded, incomplete, and self-condemning.
posted July 3, 2007 at 2:27 pm
There can be no doubt that you “Christians” constitute a religion in that you conform to a common set of doctrines.
Thank you for saying so. It sounds like you are saying you do not belong in that group. Are you admitting that you are non-Christian, then?
But since those doctrines generally have more to do with Plato and Socrates than Jesus Christ, are those doctrines even Christian?
This is just plain wrong, WoID. Some Orthodox thinking was influenced by the philosophers. They influenced the way they were explained and the way that they were analyzed, but the philosophers had nothing to do with the origin of those doctrines. You don’t seem like the intentionally deceptive type WoID, so I assume you just don’t know what you are talking about. A good study of the early Church Fathers, and the continuity from Christ that they demonstrate would be very beneficial to you, I think.
posted July 3, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Claim of restoration not unique in the slightest?
Anon,
if your statement is true, please reveal another person who claims to have received the direct authority / priesthood from God to re-establish the church of Jesus Christ on the earth along with the authority to perform the saving ordinances of the gospel. Is there someone else who claims to be a prophet like Joseph Smith was? Who was visited by Christ, Elijah, Moses and others? Who received the priesthood of Aaron from John the Baptist, the Melchizidek priesthood by laying on of hands from Peter, James and John? Who received and recorded volumes of revelation regarding the kingdom of God in the latter days?
You are an agent unto yourself and can think that Joseph Smith’s claims are false as is church that he restored / started. That is, you have a right to your own opinion. (But that doesn’t mean your opinion is right.) Your statement though that our claims of “restoration” are not unique in the slightest is nutty, unless you can come up with another religion with claims of restoration as fantastical as the LDS.
And I mean “fantastical” in the full sense of the word: not just hard to believe but if true then wonderfully, terrific happenings.
posted July 3, 2007 at 3:01 pm
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides a tremendous amount of literature to its people. This body of printed material can hardly be surveyed here. However, we can focus upon those publications that are specifically meant to communicate doctrinal truth to the members of the Mormon Church. Since the vast majority of this material appears in Church published documents, we feel quite confident that we are being fair in allowing it to speak and bear testimony to the LDS position.
Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide
The Melchizedek Priesthood, or the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God, as some Mormons refer to it, is central to the LDS concept of authority. The Church has published a book titled Search These Commandments, which is subtitled, “Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide.”[1] On pages 151 through 158 we have a study, Lesson 21, based upon D&C 132:20. The first section of the lesson is titled, “God Was Once a Man As We Are Now.” The topic of Lorenzo Snow is brought up in these words:
I believe the significance of this is clear: the Church has no qualms about promoting Snow’s couplet in modern times, and even citing a very secondary source regarding Joseph Smith’s confirmation of the verity of Snow’s ideas. Not surprisingly, then, the very next citation is very familiar to us:
The Prophet Joseph Smith said:
The continued relevance, and authority, of Smith’s teaching is here plainly demonstrated. So, too, is the authority of a General Authority speaking in Conference, as the next citation provided shows:
Are modern Mormons taught that God was once a man and progressed to godhood? Most definitely. The second section of this lesson is titled, “Our Father Advanced and Progressed Until He Became God.” What sources are provided to the Melchizedek priest to substantiate this claim?
Aside from demonstrating how deeply embedded in LDS thought is the idea of eternal progression, the use of all of these non-canonical sources by the Church to its own members should be noted. The Church is not merely providing private speculation from these leaders to her members. By citing these sources the Church is demonstrating that her truth can be found in a wider body of literature than just the Standard Works.
Next we find that the Church specifically says that the mortal life of God the Father, prior to His exaltation, was basically the same as our life today:
The next section is titled “Through Obedience to the Gospel, Man May Become like God.” To illustrate this, they quote from a devotional speech in which Elder S. Dilworth Young attributes words to the Father in heaven as He revealed His plan to us in our premortal home.
Take special notice that the Father’s Father is here mentioned. That is, the God of God, the God that the heavenly Father worshipped when He was a man, is here affirmed to exist. Some modern LDS refuse to speculate beyond what pertains to this earth, but the Church, in teaching its own people, is willing to discuss such matters. The centrality of Smith’s King Follett Discourse is seen again: the reference, HC 6:302-17, is to the History of the Church by Joseph Smith, and the King Follett sermon is found in volume 6, pages 302 and following. The lesson returns to the idea that God’s mortal existence was very much like ours by quoting an LDS Prophet:
Following these quotes, the student is asked some questions. Some include, “What can a child grow up to be?” which is immediately followed by “What can a son of God grow up to be?” There is only one answer: a God. The student is then told that God does not jealously guard his position and power.[2] The King Follett discourse is cited again, this time the section that says you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you.
After some more discussion the lesson concludes with a most interesting note: “Be careful in presenting this material that you dont bring God down to man’s level. Our objective is to perfect ourselves and raise our level to his exalted place.”
Here is the LDS Church teaching her own members her theology, and in so doing, being quite open about the ramifications of believing that God was once a man. And even here, one hundred and forty years after Joseph Smith stood to deliver his sermon at Conference on the character of God, the emphasis remains upon the exaltation of man to the position of the divine. It doesn’t seem much has changed.
———-
[1] Search These Commandments, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984). It carries the copyright of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
[2] Compare, however, Isaiah 48:11.
—-taken from blog post on http://www.aomin.org by Dr. James White—-
posted July 3, 2007 at 3:19 pm
AC Go ahead. answer your questions first. then I will. then I suspect we will have to discuss them by saying more than yes or no.
I probably won’t answer until late tonight as I am on the way to work.
posted July 3, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Anon:
>> It seems like a completely futile effort to communicate with the Mormons (at least here.) I am left with the impression that Mormons do not care about Truth or meaning.
Honestly. Please, be honest. Yes or no. Are you open to the idea that Mormons COULD in fact be Christian? Or are you dead set against it and no matter what we say you will not consider it at all. A bunch of my questions to you were never addressed as well.
It seems that the topic has been nit-picked so much that nobody can even clearly define what a Christian is. It would seem the simplest definition is one who believes in Christ. But now this has turned into silly little arguments over aspects that have nothing to do with Christ.
posted July 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Hey Mike Bension,
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
These are the answers to my own questions:
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
Yes.
2) Is Jesus Christ eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
Yes.
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
No.
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
No.
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
No.
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
No.
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
-
Yes.
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
Yes.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
No.
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
No.
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
Yes.
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
Yes.
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
No.
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
Yes.
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
No.
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
No.
I hope that now you will answer the questions in the same manner, a simple straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’ fashion. Thank you.
posted July 3, 2007 at 5:19 pm
AC, short “yes” and “no” answers are rarely helpful (especially in matters of religion) since one religious persuasion’s interpretation of a given concept will often be entirely different to another’s. How do you expect to understand unless anything unless you understand where they’re coming from?
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
But, since I suspect that a refusal to answer “yes” and “no” will prompt you to declare our silence as proof of your claims, here goes.
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
Yes
2) Is Jesus Chris eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
Yes
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
No
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
Erm, no. Not if He’s eternal. (oops, sorry, that was more than one word)
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
Yes (Does that seem incomprehensible? This is the problem with insisting on one-word answers. I could explain it, but I’m not going to. You insisted.)
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
Yes
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
This is an open question. How am I supposed to answer yes / no?
No
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
No
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
Yes
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
Yes
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
Yes
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
Yes
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
Yes
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
No
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
Yes
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
Yes
And all of the above, I realize, is about as illuminating as mud. But, you insisted on inadequate one word answers, which is what you got.
Given your frame of reference, you will, of course, completely misinterpret my answers.
3.01 You really should learn the art of brevity. I really can’t imagine who’s going to be interested in reading a diatribe that long. I took one look at the length of it and lost the will to live.
Anon @ 2.27“Are you admitting that you are non-Christian, then?”
Surprise! Not every Mormon agrees on the “Christian” label. If a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, then yes, I am. If it’s someone who believes in a set of doctrines commonly accepted by non-Mormon churches, then no, I’m not.
posted July 3, 2007 at 6:06 pm
There should be a couple more questions added. LDS answer is below
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
yes
14a) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit one God?
yes
15) Do you believe that there is only one god?
no
15a) Do you believe that there is only one God with which we have anything to do with, and before Him there is no other?
yes
Note, this is all Biblical (based on interpretation). For example, Genesis says that God says “Let us go down” (plural). It also uses the Hebrew term Eloheim (which is the plural of God), so it should read “The Gods made man” and “the Gods created the Heaven and the Earth”
Now, you may think that LDS have this concept of a plethora of “gods”, bur really, they interpret “the Gods” as “the Godhead” meaning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Also note: Godhead is in the Bible. “Trinity” is not.
Hmm…
posted July 3, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Anon wrote: Claim of restoration not unique in the slightest?
Rob Madsen replied: if your statement is true, please reveal another person who claims to have received the direct authority / priesthood from God to re-establish the church of Jesus Christ on the earth along with the authority to perform the saving ordinances of the gospel.
You didn’t say that Mormonism was unique for all the details. You said specifically that it was the only church that claimed to be restorative. *THAT* was a nutty thing to say, and a church claiming to be restorative is not at all unique. The Mormons, in fact, recycled much of the Protestant assertions about the apostasy, and the restoration of the Church during the Reformation. You also have nutty branches like the World Wide Church of God that claims to be restorative. The details are different, but the claim is the same.
Is there someone else who claims to be a prophet like Joseph Smith was? Who was visited by Christ, Elijah, Moses and others? Who received the priesthood of Aaron from John the Baptist, the Melchizidek priesthood by laying on of hands from Peter, James and John? Who received and recorded volumes of revelation regarding the kingdom of God in the latter days?
There are uncountable kooky claims out there. There are people who base their beliefs on any number of fantastical claims. There are several whose leaders claim to actually *be* Jesus Christ. Fantastical claims do nothing to increase the credibility of your assertions–especially when there are so few witnesses! In the Catholic Church, we have tens of thousands of **eye-witnesses** of the signs of Fatima. If you think fantastical is what makes it–Go check her out! There were many atheists and journalists who attended for the sake of witnessing that the signs did not happen, but they became people who testified that they did. The deeper you go into the Catholic Church, the more you will find that we don’t have a bunch of missing gold tablets. We have the real stuff!
Jesus warned us about false prophets, too. Claiming that Joseph Smith was a prophet does nothing to impress me. Christ himself warned me about him.
One thing you say is spot on.
That is, you have a right to your own opinion. (But that doesn’t mean your opinion is right.)
That is right. The Truth is independent of either of our opinions. Truth is also my friend.
Your statement though that our claims of “restoration” are not unique in the slightest is nutty,…
If Truth is nutty, then Truth is nutty.
… unless you can come up with another religion with claims of restoration as fantastical as the LDS.
Just to be sure I drove this home–fantastical details and nutty claims were not stipulated in your original assertion that you were “restorative.” I’m sure you have your own unique set of nuttiness in which you make your claims. But I don’t think that is the kind of uniqueness you were trying to claim.
By the way, I’m using the word “nutty” because you used the word “nutty.” One good irrational and irrelevant ad hominem deserves another. (Maybe not–but I’m not a Saint.) The rest of the Mormons reading can disregard the ad hominem for what it is. I mean no disrespect to you.
And I mean “fantastical” in the full sense of the word: not just hard to believe but if true then wonderfully, terrific happenings.
Check out Fatima.
posted July 3, 2007 at 6:42 pm
There is a lot of confusion ~ as these comments attest ~ in the church, in Christendom, about who is truly Christian and who is not.
We want a nice, easy-to-button-up coat to put on, to say we are the ones. It is the we-they mentality that Satan loves, because it divides the Body.
Mormonism definitely stretches some of the traditional boundaries, but the central tenet of Christianity is not a list of qualifiers, it is simple faith in who Christ is, the savior. That is the chief cornerstone, the foundation of all expressions of Christian religiosity. We build on that foundation with either precious gems or wood, hay, and stubble. Those flammable elements will burn up when we move into that next paradigm: and we all possess some of these things. What we do well will endure and purchase for us a better resurrection.
There is far too much bickering in the Christian world over incidentals, tacked-on doctrines, and supposedly “superior” styles of approaching God. Be thoroughly convinced in your own mind. But extend generosity, not self-righteous patronizing, to those who are working out their salvation with a slightly different motif. Judging this way is “straining at gnats and swallowing camels.”
God is a JUST judge. Sometimes I think many Christians believe that truth the least. They may find that many of their cherished “traditions” wind up on the junk pile in the judgment.
posted July 3, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Anon wrote: “It seems like a completely futile effort to communicate with the Mormons (at least here.) I am left with the impression that Mormons do not care about Truth or meaning.”
James Duckett replied: Honestly. Please, be honest. Yes or no. Are you open to the idea that Mormons COULD in fact be Christian? Or are you dead set against it and no matter what we say you will not consider it at all.
Honestly, I thought I was clear about this in earlier posts. I am definitely open to the idea that Mormonism could, in fact, be Christian. Most of what I have seen is contrary to that, though. If it turns out that Mormonism does, in fact, include Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine, then they would probably be Christian in my book. But you can’t just say that it does. Trinitarian Doctrine means things, and saying that you believe in only Three Gods with One Purpose is not enough. (I believe you think there are more than three, anyway.) Trinitarian Doctrine has been clear that all Three Persons are One God. It is a great mystery, and you may not agree with it. But if you don’t agree with it (and other things known about the doctrine), then you are not Christian.
If this all turns out to be a bunch of confusion, and Mormonism does, in fact, comply with the Christian Trinitarian Doctrine and any other essential attributes of Christianity, then I would accept them as Christian Bretheren. Albeit, a separated Bretheren. (I am not sure there would be any other essential attributes of Christianity. I haven’t given it thought beyond that. I only include that qualification in case there is.)
Even though it looks extremely doubtful to me that Mormonism is Christian, you would still be brethren of another sort. You are (as are Buddhists and Athiests), after all, people made by Christ and of Christ, and you do, after all, get some inspiration from Christ, and some of His teachings are shared by us. That common ground is not insignificant, and we can all be Christ-inspired to be as Christ like as we can. We can also share in good morals and good living.
A bunch of my questions to you were never addressed as well.
I have tried to respond to what I felt was relevant. If I missed something you thought was relevant, please let me know. (If I last much longer in this exercise, I will do my best to respond to them.)
It seems that the topic has been nit-picked so much that nobody can even clearly define what a Christian is.
No. I don’t think that is true at all. There has been a lot of clarity on the subject, although there have been those who lack clarity. The focus on Trinitarian Doctrine has been quite clear, though. Some Mormons disagree with it. Part of the confusion is that some Mormons reject it, and others try to prove they conform to it. I really don’t know what to respond to half the time.
The biggest problem I see, though, is the notion that you make Christianity what it is by defining it. That is a completely false approach. The question you should ask is: Where does Christianity get its meaning? It gets its meaning from two-thousand years of followers of Christ as One Person of the Trinitarian God. Christianity has been overwhelmingly united on that Trinitarian Doctrine, which includes God’s eternal existence as God–not as a man. Jesus became man, but He was also always God. That is *essential* to the meaning that makes up Christianity. If you deny what has given Christianity its meaning, then you deny Christianity. Thinking you can redefine it to mean something it does not is the mistake.
No one “gets to define” Christianity. It is what it is. Even the Pope cannot change what it is through the act of definition. We can only “define” Christianity by describing what we already know about it.
It would seem the simplest definition is one who believes in Christ.
How simple a definition might be has little to do with what something is. If simplicity misses the essential nature of something, it is insufficient.
With your insufficient definition above, you can’t get away from the problem of those who believe in Christ the Cheese Danish. They would have a fair claim at being Christian, too. (As would Atheists who believed in him.) In all of Christianity, believing in Christ has deeper meaning than just a name. For some odd reason, some Mormons think they can use the name for an entirely different Being, and expect that they are of the same belief system. It is irrational, and it is deceptive. (Intentional, or no.)
If you decided to celebrate my mother’s birthday, but claimed she was an alien from Alpha Centauri and that I misunderstood everything she taught me from birth, and that now you are the legitimate heir to her legacy and my family name, I would say you are nuts. You shouldn’t be surprised that I have much the same reaction regarding my mother Church.
But now this has turned into silly little arguments over aspects that have nothing to do with Christ.
I think you are trying to brush off the problems that have been presented to you. These arguments have everything to do with Christ. But the modus operandi here seems to be to pretend that meaning doesn’t matter, so now you want to brush these things off as if they do not matter.
Meaning *does* matter.
posted July 3, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Wizard of ID quotes: Anon @ 2.27″Are you admitting that you are non-Christian, then?”
Then replies:
Surprise! Not every Mormon agrees on the “Christian” label. If a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, then yes, I am. If it’s someone who believes in a set of doctrines commonly accepted by non-Mormon churches, then no, I’m not.
Your affinity for clarity and meaning is an honorable one. You have my respect.
posted July 3, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Um, excuse me, but what does Christ say? Anyone who believes in Him. He is the Lord, Savior, Redeemer, King, etc, etc, etc. It does not matter if you are a Baptist, a Mormon, or whatever, if you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he was crucified, resurrected, and arose, and you have asked Him to be Lord of your life, THEN YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN!
posted July 3, 2007 at 7:58 pm
There is a lot of confusion ~ as these comments attest ~ in the church, in Christendom, about who is truly Christian and who is not.
No. The Mormons on this list are sowing confusion. Among Christians–with a few exceptions–there is little confusion. Even those who don’t consider Catholicism part of Christianity will still agree that the Trinitarian Doctrine is essential to Christianity. You simply want to give the impression that there is confusion so that you can slip Mormonism into that confusion. If the only way you can get there is by spreading confusion and doing violence to meaning–you should probably figure out that something is deeply, deeply wrong with what you are doing.
We want a nice, easy-to-button-up coat to put on, to say we are the ones. It is the we-they mentality that Satan loves, because it divides the Body.
Satan loves confusion. Satan loves it when you invite him in the door by destroying the meaning of things. As long as the meaning is confused and uncertain–the devil will find a way into it. Those of you who are being destructive to meaning are inviting Satan into your discussion.
In the Bible Christ said that he would divide us, too. So division is not a sign that can be used by self-righteous Mormons to say we are pleasing the devil. Notice how you are getting farther and farther from the point? Notice how you are bringing in self-righteous judgments in order to distract from the meaning that you are trying to destroy? (There’s more of this below.)
Mormonism definitely stretches some of the traditional boundaries, but the central tenet of Christianity is not a list of qualifiers, it is simple faith in who Christ is, the savior.
You continue to ignore the thing that has been said several times on this forum. “Simple faith in who Christ is” has a different meaning to you than it does to Christianity. “Simple faith in who Christ is” can be spouted freely by anyone who chooses to believe that Christ is anything that they want. Christ could be an animated Teletubby. Christ could be a sentient strawberry shortcake. Christ could be a mass murderer. Christ could be a court jester. All these “beliefs” would be legitimate according to the way you use the statement. You seem to believe that Christ is someone other than Who Christianity believes Him to be. The figure you worship may be inspired by the Christ of Christianity, but it is some other kind of being. Your “simple faith in who Christ is” is *grossly* insufficient for inclusion in the Christian religion.
That is the chief cornerstone, the foundation of all expressions of Christian religiosity.
It might be if it actually had any meaning when you said it. It is the cornerstone *if* you believe in Christ as One of the Persons in the One God. But the way you mean it, it is obvious to any real Christian that it is NOT. You completely disregard the tacit teachings and understanding that Christians have about Christ when *Christians* say: We have faith in Who Christ is.
We build on that foundation with either precious gems or wood, hay, and stubble. Those flammable elements will burn up when we move into that next paradigm: and we all possess some of these things. What we do well will endure and purchase for us a better resurrection.
Without meaning, your materials are very precarious indeed.
There is far too much bickering in the Christian world over incidentals, tacked-on doctrines, and supposedly “superior” styles of approaching God.
When non-Christians try to undermine Christian meaning and Christian teaching, there will be objections. You are only preaching this “let live” attitude because you want the violence you do to the meaning of Christianity to be accepted. Very convenient. (And a distraction from the point at hand.)
Be thoroughly convinced in your own mind. But extend generosity, not self-righteous patronizing, to those who are working out their salvation with a slightly different motif. Judging this way is “straining at gnats and swallowing camels.”
This isn’t about being self-righteous. (This is another of your distractions mentioned above.) Again, you preach generosity because the kind of generosity you want is to be allowed to destroy meaning. You want us to be generous enough to throw away meaning and invite Satan into the Christian door. You want us to be generous by allowing you to do everything you can to destroy Christianity and make it incoherent.
Forgive me if I’m not feeling so generous just now.
God is a JUST judge. Sometimes I think many Christians believe that truth the least. They may find that many of their cherished “traditions” wind up on the junk pile in the judgment.
God is also merciful. I hope His mercy is deep enough for both of us.
posted July 3, 2007 at 8:01 pm
You know what? Maybe instead of Christian, a better word would be Believer? Believer in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, aka The Son of God.
posted July 3, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I discuss this debate on my blog at the following link:
http://tinyurl.com/22zz5t
posted July 3, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Um, excuse me,…
Um. Excuse me, Dana. But you have to take into consideration what those words *mean*. Christianity believes that believing in *Him* means believing in a particular being with a particular nature. You apparently believe in a figure with a very different nature.
The Sola Scriptura approach of Bible interpretation does not help you. There are a hundred different reasonable interpretations of that Scripture, and you are simply choosing the one that is convenient for you. Without an authority that understands the Traditional intentions of the author, there is no way to tell who’s interpretation is correct.
Also, see my previous post for further edification.
posted July 3, 2007 at 8:42 pm
As far as mormons are christains I’d say NO. Because if you realy look at it closely it’s foundation is Masonic. Smith and his followers where all masons they took rituals from the masonic lodge and made it into a church. when smith translated the book of momon he had a sheet in between the recorder of the book and himself he was quoteing from the KINg James bible and never had any plates of gold sent by angles. all there rituals are done in the temple where only members are alowd this is not christian for all christain churces welcome all faiths to worship not just a select few. so if you ask me this is not the christain way of worship.
I do not want to offend anyone with this comment but someone has to be truthful and speak the thuth before all our young people get caught up in this trap.
posted July 3, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Wizard of Id,
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
I appreciate the fact that you actually responded to the questions in a straightforward fashion. Thank you.
Below I will give you the biblical answers to these questions.
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” John 1:1,14
2) Is Jesus Chris eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
“whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2
“In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1
“I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore…” Revelation 1:17b,18a
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: No
“Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” Isaiah 48:16
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: No
“before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
“before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalm 90:2
This means that the Father never became God, but rather, from “everlasting to everlasting” He has been and will always be God.
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
The Wizard of Id said: This is an open question. How am I supposed to answer yes / no?
AC says: Yes, I guess you are right. It was more of a rhetorical question.
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:3
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. ” Colossians 1:16-17
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. ” Colossians 1:16-17
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
As the above two questions make abundantly clear: God is the Creator of the devil, not his brother.
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Man is a created being: “I have made the earth, and created man upon it” Isaiah 45:12a
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” Job 38:4
“He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men” Acts 17:25b,26a
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1-2
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
The Holy Spirit is God:
“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?… thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” Acts 5:3-4b
God is of course eternal:
“The everlasting God” Genesis 21:33
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well” James 2:19a
“For there is one God” 1 Timothy 2:5a
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Isaiah 44:6
“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Isaiah 44:8b
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
Th Bible says: No
“before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” Isaiah 45:5 (How much clearer can He get?)
“there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. ” Isaiah 45:21b-22
“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else…” Isaiah 46:9aa
Again, “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10
“I will not give my glory unto another” Isaiah 48:11
It is this ONE true living eternal Creator of everything God who exists ALONE as God with no possibility of there ever being other gods alongside Him whom Jesus claimed to be:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
And in whom you must believe in order to be saved from the wrath to come:
“And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” John 8:23-24
My friend, I beg you in the name of Jesus, repent of the false Mormon god and turn to the living God for the forgiveness of your sins! Seriously! The Bible is OH SO CLEAR about who He is! How many times did we just read Him say that He is the only God that exist and there is no other nor will there ever be?! I beg you with all the love in the world, repent! This is your soul at stake! If you do not repent of the false Mormon god and believe that Christ is who the Bible says He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell. Please repent and believe!
posted July 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm
What is astonishing about Dr. Mohler’s essay, and many of the other criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (AKA “Mormons”) is the appalling ignorance that lies at the base of the critical comments. Claiming that Jesus Christ is not depicted in the Book of Mormon is a very strange statement. You can go to any bookstore and find hundreds of books written for the Christian market that describe Jesus Christ and try to explain what he did and how he would advise modern people about how to care for their health, their marital relationships, and the environment. At least in the sense that hundreds of Baptists like Dr. Mohler make money writing books about Jesus, the Book of Mormon also talks about the same Jesus–the one who was born to the virgin Mary, taught his gospel, ordained apostles, healed the sick, performed other miracles, sweat blood in Gethsemane, and died on the cross after asking his Father to forgive his executioners–and was resurrected and appeared to not only the apostles but also “above five hundred brethren at once”. There is nothing else in the New Testament that describes that particular appearance of Christ, but anyone who takes Paul seriously has to believe that it really happened, even though we don;t have the names of any of the witnesses or where this happened. What the Book of Mormon says is that Christ, who as the resurrected God could appear to five hundred men who were among the earliest Christians, did the same thing at another location. Does that seem unlikely? Only if you don’t really believe Christ is God. And while visiting those people, he recapitulated the teachings and miracles of his mortal life in Judea and Galilee. Does that offend you? The very idea that Christ, the Son of God, might actaully be able to exercise his powers anyplace on earth (or heaven) He thinks best?
One thing the Book of Mormon says is that those people who really believe the Bible will also believe the words of the Book of Mormon, because they are also the words of Christ. The honest in heart, specifically those who do not reject God and refuse to listen to any more of his words, will recognize the voice of Christ in the Book of Mormon because they know his voice from the Bible.
Let’s say we conduct a poll to see if “Mormons” are Christians. Let’s conduct a poll of three million people. They will be people who met the definition of “orthodox traditional Christian” as used by Dr. Mohler. They were members of various denominations–of every Christian church recognized as “orthodox” with a small “o”. We will ask them to study the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints closely, and consider whether it is Christian or not in light of their experience and education in their own various Christian denominations. Would they be a reliable guide to whether Mormons are Christians or not?
That “poll” has been conducted. Three million Americans who were previously members of various traditional Christian churches did the comparison, and decided that “Mormons” are in fact Christians, too. And they showed that decision by being baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ.
Three million Christians, by anyone’s definition, have declared in the most sober way possible that Mormons are Christian, that they were Christians before their baptism, and they continue, as Mormons, to be Christians. They know the other churches inside out–some of them were ministers and priests–and they also know Mormonism inside out, and they declare that Mormons are Christians in every way that is important, specifically in having saving faith in the Christ who is testified of by the evangelists and apostles of the New Testament.
Now some people try to say that these Mormons are stupid, or ignorant, or gullible, or even evil. But the fact is they were regular members of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Catholic churches, so you have to apply those epithets to your fellow “Christians” as well. And these converts decided that there was nothing in “Mormon” beliefs that would require them to leave behind their faith in Christ.
The notion that Joseph Smith was a charlatan is hogwash. Crooks and confidence men do not voluntarily surrender themselves up to people they know will kill them, especially when there are thousands of people who would die to protect them in their escape. Smith died as a martyr to his testimony of his visions. He was never wealthy, in an era when there were self-made men all over America based solely on the ability to get followers. He was persecuted throughout his life. Smith could have taken the easy path to religious leadership, as so many others did in his day, by sticking with religious orthodoxy. He certainly could have led a church without having to do all the work of producing and publishing the Book of Mormon, a book that never sold well but was more often passed around, not making a profit, being attacked even before it was published. Smith’s boldness in declaring his message, and its unpopularity among most of his contemporaries, were not the marks of a P.T. Barnum or Elmer Gantry, but rather of someone like the prophets Elijah and Jeremiah, who underwent imprisonment and exile because they said what God told them to say.
Christians should remember that critics of Christianity call Jesus of Nazareth the same kind of charlatan and magician that some Christians now call Joseph Smith (e.g. The Passover Plot, or The Da Vinci Code). Yet we now can read his most intimate diaries and letters, and in all of them Joseph is revealed as a sincere believer in the things he taught. And that is how he died.
Baptists like Dr. Mohler should be aware that the most virulent of the anti-Mormons who tell Baptists what to believe about Mormons are in fact charlatans themselves, distorting the most basic things about their own life stories, including fabricating credentials. The entire buy-in by the Southern Baptists of the frauds perpetrated by the professional anti-Mormons is a demonstration of un-Christian behavior by millions of people, who hunger to hear and read bad things about Mormons, a people who never harmed or threatened them, who read the Bible and worship the Father in the name of his Son, and who try to obey Christ’s commandment, to love one another, as He loved us. Indeed, the animosity that streams from the mouths of Southern Baptists toward Mormons is a gross violation of Christ’s command, and a witness that Baptists are indeed NOT the disciples of Christ because their capacity to love is so crippled.
The greatest irony of Baptists criticizing the Mormons as inadequate Christians is that so many Southern Baptists embrace the notion that they can be saved and assured of permanent salvation for eternity by a single act of confession of faith in Christ. They claim that salvation can be obtained through no real effort or obedience of their own. They set the bar very low for themselves, yet they turn around and claim that Mormons cannot be saved by that standard, but must DO and BELIEVE a whole litany of things. Yet where are the people at the Billy Graham crusades who conduct a catechism of everyone coming forward seeking baptism or salvation, questioning whether they correctly understand the Nicene doctrine of the simultaneous unity AND trinity (threeness) of God? Where are the people who check whether people have read the Bible, let alone understood it? The truth is that most Southern Baptists don’t talk about how wonderfgul it is that God has no passions or emotions, that He is totally unlike us. They concentrate on the resurrected Lord, the Son of God who was fully in possession of his glory and powers, yet could be touched and felt and could eat a honeycomb with the apostles. The music that animates Baptist worship is not in praise of how utterly unlike mankind God is, as described in the creeds, but rather on the words of the Bible that describe God as loving us so much he sent his Son to suffer and die for us. Frankly, hardly anybody believes in the “triune God” because they cannot make a coherent statement comprehending how it is possible to be a single entity of one substance, while at the same time being three distinct persons that are not confounded, to be the loving Father who sent his suffering Son, while also being a God without a body or emotions. All that subscription to this aspect of the creeds entails is words without substance, recitation without understanding, form without heart. And there are plenty of Evangelical theologians who agree with this analysis, that they are corrupted by the overlay of Greek philosophy that separates us from the simple truths of the Bible itself about the nature of God’s emotions and the physical reality of his Son. Mormons simply say outright what most sincere Christians really know, that the neoplatonic God borrowed from Aristotle is a false God, a different Father who has no resemblance to the incarnate Son of God who bled on the cross and returned to his physical body. The immaterial, unfeeling God is a Gnostic heresy that implanted itself onto “normative” Christiantiy. That is a sin against God the Father, for it tells his children that they are orphans, that he does not really love them or sorrow with them but simply simulates it, the way a computer might. No wonder He was angry when he denounced the creeds to Joseph Smith.
posted July 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm
He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell. Please repent and believe!
For the record, according to Orthodoxy, we are forbidden to judge the hearts of men, and we are forbidden to condemn anyone to hell. The Bible does give us stern warning, and we know that those who do not believe are in great peril. But we cannot play judge of another’s soul. Using the Bible is simply claiming your own interpretive authority for being the judge of someone’s soul. This is just one of the dangers of the Sola Scriptura doctrine. (A doctrine that is an innovation of Protestantism, and is not supported by Holy Scripture.)
posted July 3, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Anon,
It was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself that said whoever does not believe that He is (the one true God of the Bible), that person will die in his or her sins. Mormons believe in a false Jesus that cannot save but surely condemns as per the Bible.
Mormons preach “another gospel”. A gospel that condemns as per Scripture. It was the Apostle Paul who said, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
You said that I cannot know. Jesus said that I can (to a certain degree of course). It was Jesus who said that we will “KNOW them by their fruits”. We are to inspect “fruit” in order to KNOW who is the true and who is the false. Mormonism’s fruits deny basic biblical teaching and replace them with a false Gospel which means a call to repentance is clearly in place.
You seem like a very nice person and I love how you are defending basic biblical doctrine. With that said, Roman Catholicism also preaches a false works-righteousness idolatrous gospel that anyone whom ascribes to should immediately repent of. We will save that discussion for some other time.
posted July 3, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Um, excuse me Anon, but who are you to tell me who or what I believe in? I believe in Christ, that He is the Son of God, my Lord and my savior, and His “nature” is one of Love, Grace, and Forgiveness. I am not going to argue with you or anyone else, but do NOT presume to tell me who or what I believe in. I am not a Mormon, but I feel like anyone has the right to worship as they see fit. However, Christ himself gave us the great commission, and told us to love each other as we love ourselves. He also told us not to judge, do you remember that part? My job as a believer in Christ is to make sure that everyone I come across and is willing to listen knows that Christ did exist, He did die for our sins, and He does love us. And I will pray for you too. Religion is not the answer, Christ is.
posted July 3, 2007 at 9:56 pm
For the record.
Our unnamed poster submitted the following:
After a thoughtful reply to a previous post, Roper’s reply was “*Right, but you still ain’t a Christian.” Well, that seems to be the trump card in this discussion, which makes it all so pointless. Dr. Mohler and the rest will continue to play that trump card over and over, it doesn’t make a difference.
Actually, that “Right but you still ain’t a Christian” was POC777′s response to my (Roper’s) post.
Just didn’t want any of my friends from other forums to think I had apostatized from the LDS faith
posted July 3, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I initially asked this question of Steve, but he hasn’t returned to the discussion yet. So I’ll direct it to anyone here sympathetic to Dr. Mohler’s argument.
According to widely-accepted Christian doctrine, what has to happen in order for a person to be saved? And what does salvation mean?
I know this question seems tangential to the discussion, but I believe it’s germane for reasons that should become apparent.
posted July 3, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Interesting point, Dana. Except that you avoided the issue alltogether. Do the words have meaning, or don’t they? If they do have meaning, the Mormon beliefs are either aligned to them or counter to them. If they do not have meaning–we have nothing to say to each other. (Literally.)
Sorry about my incorrect assumption about you. But it’s really beside the point.
posted July 3, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Roper, your question and its answer probably won’t be helpful to resolve the “definition” issue at hand, but here are some words from Zippy Catholic that I think are edifying to your question:
The underlying assumption seems to be salvation by knowledge. To understand the Catholic Faith you have to understand that it is not primarily about intellect, or even morals: it is about Christ received through the sacraments, because He commanded it, and because those who love Him will do as He commands because they love Him. And He commands as He does because He loves us. Understanding may follow practice, to a greater or lesser degree. But the Catholic faith is a loving response to our King and Redeemer, not an intellectual response to a text. A Downs Syndrom Catholic who can’t read the Bible is in no way lesser than a theologically giant intellectual.
The Catholic faith doesn’t get snagged on “what exactly is it that saves us” because the thing that saves us isn’t an “it”. The thing that saves us is a Who. Asking what you have to do to be saved is like asking what you have to do to make sure that your wife will still love you tomorrow. There may be things you can do, but it isn’t a mechanical process. It isn’t something that happens at an instant, making anything that follows irrelevant. It is love.
The Catholic view is that if we love Christ we will follow his commands, submit to the Rock of authority He established (including text written by inspired human beings, traditions passed on by human beings, and a magisterium that remains quite fallen and human yet bears the protection of the Holy Spirit in doctrinal and sacramental matters), and wait in joyful hope.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t sincere elements of all of these things in Protestant faiths. But the answer to “what must I do to be saved” can’t be specified in a finite text, any more than “what must I do to make sure my wife still loves me tomorrow”. There are no guarantees, and yet the guarantees transcend any intellectual guarantee because they are rooted in love.
END EXCERPT
posted July 3, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I’ve browesed through the many comments made, and I’ve noted that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, nick-named the mormon church, matches the new testament church of Christ almost identically in the way it has been persecuted in this blog.
posted July 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm
edit: matches the new testament church of Christ almost identically in the way it has been persecuted in the past and how it is presently persecuted in this blog.
posted July 3, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Now, take the above excerpt from Zippy and go back to my example about my mother.
I wrote: “If you decided to celebrate my mother’s birthday, but claimed she was an alien from Alpha Centauri and that I misunderstood everything she taught me from birth, and that now you are the legitimate heir to her legacy and my family name, I would say you are nuts. You shouldn’t be surprised that I have much the same reaction regarding my mother Church.”
Now I would still expect my mother to take some pity upon you. You might not have my family name, and you might not really know her for who she is. But your beliefs in her were somehow inspired by her, and she would no doubt wish you well–mercifully swallowing much of her irritation. She might even feed you some cake. In a way you would have a warped relationship with her, and in a way you would have a relationship with a figment of your imagination. But you would still not be my mother’s children, and you would not be legitimate followers of her.
Christ’s love and mercy is boundless. He is a far more loving and merciful Being than my mother. So who am I to say whether Mormons are saved, or not? As an Orthodox Christian–I don’t know. My issues in this discussion have never been whether or not Mormons are saved. My issues have been whether or not they are Christian.
Besides–whether you think He is a space alien, or not. You and the whole world really are His children.
posted July 3, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I’ve browesed through the many comments made, and I’ve noted that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, nick-named the mormon church, [Dixon's edit] matches the new testament church of Christ almost identically in the way it has been persecuted in the past and how it is presently persecuted in this blog.
Oh, please. That is just plain silly. To equate this to persecution the likes of the martyrdom of Stephen is the epitome of hyperbole. You obviously have no clue what true persecution is. (Lucky you.)
And why is the pursuit of Truth and clarity a matter of persecution?
This is just one more example of back-handed ad hominem. And ad hominem is a tool for those who are intellectually bankrupt.
posted July 3, 2007 at 11:33 pm
(Pssst. Hey, Skippy. You got those lions ready, yet?)
posted July 4, 2007 at 12:10 am
Thank you, Dr. Mohler. The Mormon church has made an idol out of Joseph Smith and is darkened in understanding. We who believe should pray that God would open their hearts and minds.
posted July 4, 2007 at 12:17 am
Does this sound like someone who bears the fruit of the spirit?
In “Doctrine and Covenants Section 132″ Joseph Smith wrote, “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.”
Joseph Smith was deluded by lusts.
posted July 4, 2007 at 12:20 am
If being a Christian means that I try to understand and live my life according to His words as contained in the Bible. That I read those words, meditate on those words and try in a very deep sense to understand how to try to put His words into practice in my day to day life, I am Christian. If it means I find refuge in Him and peace that surpasses my understanding, I am Christian. If it means that through Him, I am delivered from my sins and my pains and my sadnesses in a way I don’t fully understand, I am Christian.
If being Christian means that I fully accept the philosophical creeds reconciliating Greek thought to the words in the Bible, then I am not Christian. If it means that I accept any preacher’s teaching as authority and definitive interpretation of what God is in my life, I reject that wholeheartedly.
I will leave it up to God to be who He is. I struggle to follow His example, and rest my lot on the judgment seat to say whether or not He knows me. As a minimum, I can say that I have found Peace in this world through Him. I have also found inspiration from many sources of those that try to follow Him and learn from Him from across a variety of Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist, and Evangelical writers. And broader yet from others that seek to understand God and His Will for Us.
Explanations and debates into exactly how and why Jesus does what He does now I don’t find useful. Just as the debates over exactly how old the earth is and what happened to the dinosaurs during the flood. Neither helps me adopt a more loving view towards my neighbor the way Christ’s examples and teachings do.
posted July 4, 2007 at 12:37 am
The Mormon at the other side of this argument writes, “at the level of religious practice we believe that we are the only Christians who act and speak with the authority of Christ.”
If you “learn from Him from across a variety of Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist, and Evangelical writers,” then, GOOD! You’re not buying into the Mormons!
posted July 4, 2007 at 12:56 am
I think Card hit the nail on the head. I’m not sure where Mohler got a Ph.D., but he begs the question from the outset. Circular reasoning like “I am right; therefore, you are wrong” is not very good scholarship, theology, or worship. Sounds like he’s used to speaking only to people who agree with him.
I think that Mormon theology is just as Christian as evangelical theology. To argue otherwise usually requires a definition of Christian that excludes the Apostles themselves (who didn’t read the Bible, understand the Nicene Creed or its Greek philosophical backdrop). It would be equally misleading for Mormons to say that evangelicals aren’t Christian, though. I think both sides should just say, “you’re also trying to follow Christ, but you don’t understand what [I think] I do about his Gospel.”
posted July 4, 2007 at 1:11 am
If being a Christian means…
It does mean some of those things, but it also means some other very essential things. Included in those essential things is the doctrine of the Trinity. Have you read the other posts?
That I read those words, meditate on those words and try in a very deep sense to understand how to try to put His words into practice in my day to day life, I am Christian.
That is problematic. Since you don’t have an authority for interpreting those Scriptures, you really have no way of knowing if you are interpreting them correctly. There are any number of reasonable ways to interpret Scripture. This leads many to simply interpret it they way that they like. But that isn’t reading from scripture–that’s reading *into* it.
If being Christian means that I fully accept the philosophical creeds reconciliating Greek thought to the words in the Bible, then I am not Christian.
The implication that the early Church did this is a distortion. Christian doctrine was not determined by Greek thought at all. (Unless you mean *Christian* Greeks.) Greek philosophy was a study in *method*. The Church borrowed from the *methods* in order to better articulate the doctrines.
I know that is not a convenient truth to those who want to distort the origins of Christian doctrine, but it is true. Hopefully you care about truth. (I get the feeling that you do.)
If it means that I accept any preacher’s teaching as authority and definitive interpretation of what God is in my life, I reject that wholeheartedly.
I don’t think there are very many Christians who would take the teaching of “any” preacher as authoritative and definitive interpretation, either. So I don’t know why you even say this. And, while were at it, are you saying that there is no authority at all in Mormonism?
I will leave it up to God to be who He is.
I hope you do. Keep in mind that, although I am 100% confident that Catholicism is the One True Church, I have not been arguing whether or not Christianity or Mormonism is true or false in this discussion. I respect the faith that you have, but I reject this idea that you can reject the doctrine of the Trinity and still be Christian. If Mormonism is correct in its understanding of Jesus and God the Father, then Christianity is a false religion. If that is true, I hope He will have mercy on me for my ignorance.
On the other hand, I think the case for Catholicism is overwhelming for those who would explore it, so I really hope that He will have mercy on all Mormons.
Explanations and debates into exactly how and why Jesus does what He does now I don’t find useful. Just as the debates over exactly how old the earth is and what happened to the dinosaurs during the flood. Neither helps me adopt a more loving view towards my neighbor the way Christ’s examples and teachings do.
The influence of the True Christ’s teaching is apparent, I think, in the goodness of the Mormons that I have met. I do see some wisdom in what you say. However, there is also something to be said for Truth and meaning. Much of what Jesus taught is in the context of very deep meaning, and I will not stand by to watch that get compromised. I will not stand by while others open the door to let Satan in.
posted July 4, 2007 at 1:50 am
This is what Christianity has come to: endless disputations about who’s in charge, who speaks for Jesus and who gets in the club.
How unfortunate.
According to the Gospels, Jesus had a solution, a way of turning any community into “the Kingdom of God.” It involved a new way of thinking.
Be gentle, merciful, honest, pure in heart, peacemakers.
Be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
Don’t make peace with God until you’ve made peace with your brother.
The best way to avoid adultery is to avoid it in your heart.
You don’t need an oath if your word is true.
Go the extra mile.
Love even your enemies.
Don’t do good just to be seen.
Don’t pray just to be seen.
If you want to be forgiven, learn to forgive.
Don’t set your heart on riches but on doing good.
There’s more to life than food.
There’s more to life than your clothes.
There’s more to life than your house.
Don’t judge.
Pray.
Don’t listen to what men say, watch what they do.
This is Christianity – not endless squabbles over ecclesiastical authority, the mode and manner of baptism, which offices to hold, who gets to run the store and who gets to come in.
There are a lot of different groups with a lot of different ways of approaching the teachings of Jesus, but the most un-Christian approach is to stand in judgment of this group or that and say, “You can’t come in. You’re not a Christian.”
Christianity ought to be about more than that.
posted July 4, 2007 at 3:14 am
There are a lot of different groups with a lot of different ways of approaching the teachings of Jesus, but the most un-Christian approach is to stand in judgment of this group or that and say, “You can’t come in. You’re not a Christian.”
When is this nonsense going to stop? This has been dealt with several times now. If you cannot make judgments about meaning, we are completely lost, because we are all dealing with meaninglessness. If anybody who believes anything about who or what Jesus is can claim to be Christians, then we invite any devil in existence who claims his favorite demon is named Jesus Christ to be counted among the Christians. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE THE ALLY OF DEMONS?
That isn’t to say that Mormons are in any way demons themselves. However, to avoid being allies of demons we have to respect meaning and Truth. Christianity *means* very tangible things, and if Mormonism doesn’t fit into what it means, then Mormons should reject becoming an ally to the demons and accept the fact that they are not Christians.
This idea that “Oh, we should all just get along” is a reason to avoid anything meaningful is a pernicious and evil thing. It is reasoning that belongs in hell where it came from.
posted July 4, 2007 at 3:48 am
Hey AC
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
Thank you. Now I will compare answers with you.
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
AC: Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
2) Is Jesus Christ eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
AC: Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
AC: No.
Mike: No.
3a. Is Jesus the Son of the Father?
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
AC: No.
Mike: No because Jesus is eternal
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
AC No.
Mike: No Jesus Christ is eternal so there will be God eternally and Jesus is God. And we can be like Him as He is like the Father, can be one with Him as He is one with the Father, Can be joint heirs posessing all that He and the Father have, and can sit with Him as He sits with his Father on the throne.
Bible: See John 17, Romans 8, Revelation 3:22, Ist John 2.
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
AC No.
Mike Yes
Bible: John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Since Jesus became a man and then died and was resurrected, and since Jesus does nothing but what he sees the Father do, then the Father, according to Jesus became a man, died and was resurrected.
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
AC ?
Mike: Since Jesus was God while he was a man, and since Jesus does nothing but what he sees the Father do, The Father was God while he was a man.
Bible: John 5:19
-
AC: Yes.
Mike: No
Bible: Every Thing, not every man or every creature
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
AC Yes.
Mike: No
Bible: The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost are all eternal, so is Satan, and men and all matter. The Bible word for Create in the First verse of Genesis “Baurau” means to organize rather than to create our of nothing.
If God, The Father or Jesus created Satan out of nothing, then they are responsible for evil. If all things are organized form eternal pre-existing matter thay are free agents.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
AC No.
Mike Yes
See Comments above
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
AC No.
MIke Yes
See Above
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
AC: Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
Is all matter co-eteranl with the Father? Bible yes Genesis 1:1
“Baurau”
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
AC:Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
AC No.
Mike: No.
How are they one?
AC: ?
Mke: In Unity, Purpose and Love, in Power and might and Dominion See John 17
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
AC Yes.
Mike: Yes
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
AC: No.
Mike: No, They can become God. One with the Father and the Son, Joint Heirs with Them, Like Them, one in Unity, purpose and Love, in Power and might and Dominion. See John 17, Romans 8, 1st John 2, Revelation 3:22
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
AC: No.
Mike: No
AC: I hope that now you will answer the questions in the same manner, a simple straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’ fashion. Thank you.
Mike: Since when the Widzard of Id did so, you then elaborated, I feel free to do so as well.
posted July 4, 2007 at 6:28 am
From Anon:
Christ’s love and mercy is boundless. He is a far more loving and merciful Being than my mother. So who am I to say whether Mormons are saved, or not? As an Orthodox Christian–I don’t know. My issues in this discussion have never been whether or not Mormons are saved. My issues have been whether or not they are Christian.
My reply:
My observation is this: Most Christians will say that salvation comes from accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and a commitment to follow Him in faith. Different denominations may state it differently and add further clarification, but I believe that’s the common core.
My conclusion is this: If Jesus really is Lord and Savior, then only He has authority to determine who belongs to His fold. Not Orson Card. Not Dr. Mohler. Not anyone on this forum. The whole pointlessness of this debate is that people want to use a linguistic distinction (the definition of the word “Christian”) to judge whether others belong to Christ. Only Christ can do that. Only Christ can know that.
So instead of trying to excise a person or group of people who have clearly shown acceptance of and dedication to Jesus Christ, wouldn’t it be far more “Christian” to use the time and talents God has given us to take this Good News to those who haven’t received it?
And with that, I’ve wasted too much of my own time on this issue.
posted July 4, 2007 at 7:23 am
I made the following comment:
“There are a lot of different groups with a lot of different ways of approaching the teachings of Jesus, but the most un-Christian approach is to stand in judgment of this group or that and say, ‘You can’t come in. You’re not a Christian.’
This evoked a reaction from an anonymous poster, who took me to task. I’d like to respond to specific issues raised by this poster, specifically the following:
NONSENSE
“When is this nonsense going to stop? This has been dealt with several times now. If you cannot make judgments about meaning, we are completely lost, because we are all dealing with meaninglessness.”
It’s not a question of meaning but of authority. Given that Christianity has more flavors than Basken Robins, it’s only fair to ask, “Who gets to decide which group or groups or proper Christians – and which aren’t?”
For about fifteen hundred years, the answer would have been clear – depending on which side of Europe you called home. If you lived under the control of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox were the only true Christians. If you lived west of that line, it was Catholicism or nothing.
Had he lived during this time, Dr. Mohler would have been tortured and executed for being a Baptist. A similar fate awaited other Protestants – who are only now in the clear because northern Europe rose up, through force of arms, to defend its right to set up national churches. Even then, the question of “Who’s a proper Christian?” was decided by the king.
We live in a country where church and state are separated – or at least estranged – in large part because of England’s bloody experience. When the Crown wasn’t locked in a civil war between Protestants and Catholics, it was locked in a civil war between Anglicans and Puritans.
Of all the words uttered by Jesus, or his disciples, there are no nifty little definitions that can be used to decide which followers of Christ get to call themselves Christians. There are, however, lots of admonitions on how to live a Christian life. Jesus, himself, said that not all they cried, “Lord, Lord” would enter into the kingdom, but they who did the will of the Father.
Jesus was very clear that unless a person’s behavior was better than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, they were just kidding themselves – building on a foundation of sand. I think such advice would apply to everyone, regardless of sectarian affiliation.
“If anybody who believes anything about who or what Jesus is can claim to be Christians, then we invite any devil in existence who claims his favorite demon is named Jesus Christ to be counted among the Christians. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE THE ALLY OF DEMONS?”
The problem with this objection is not just that it’s based on a hypothetical – one that has yet to occur in 2,000 years – nor is it simply that the situation you describe is beyond absurd. It’s that even if you saw some group marching down the street with a sign that said, “Praise the Demon Jesus,” you’d still have the same problem you started with: Who gets to decide what the standard is for being a Christian?
In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” He didn’t say anything about which creed to adopt. He told his disciples that if their righteousness did not exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, they would in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God.
posted July 4, 2007 at 10:30 am
This debate is sad and is also endless. Mormons are taught to defend their religion,so they will never admit that they may not be right. Those of us who know and believe the truth of God’s Word have been warned through the Holy Bible that there would be a great falling away and that false Christs, prophets and messiahs would be the hallmark of the endtimes. We also know that Satan has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so that they cannot see the truth of God’s Word. Born again ones: don’t argue about what you know to be truth, instead pray that through this debate that God the Holy Spirit will convict some and convince others that maybe what they (the Mormons) have accepted as truth may in fact be gross error. Only the Holy Spirit of the God of the Holy Bible can draw the lost to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of all mankind.
posted July 4, 2007 at 11:59 am
WoW! I am truly chocked! Who are these people who say Mormons are not Christians? Igorance and lack of research seem to be their source of information. In the real sense of all those who claim to be a Christian, Mormons are the most devout, loyal Christians I have ever met or hope to meet. Nothing they ever do excludes Christ’s teachings, sacrifice and total devotion to family, community and country is their way of life. It insults me as a human being, when ignorant people, liars, and deceivers attemps to tarnish peoples reputation or beleifs when they absolutely have no clue of what they are talking about. I am ashamed for those who had their own corrupted agenda in giving false testemonies about what they have been taught in the Mormon religion. I personally have been a student of their teachings for 25 years, I have researched, and whatched very closely how they live, act and behave. I testify to anyone and everyone who desires to know, that they are indeed Christians, and that we are all blessed to have them in our lives. There is not any other religion in the present time that are better representatives of Christ as The Latter Day Saints( more commonly know as mormons). So, people shape up and do not go about creating lies and fantasies about a people you truly do not know. Remenber, there is a commandment that talks about bearing false witness. Please do not condemn yourselves!
posted July 4, 2007 at 12:24 pm
http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_christian.htm
Why is Mormonism a non Christian religion? It is not Christian because it denies that there is only one God, denies the true Gospel, adds works to salvation, denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator, distorts the biblical teaching of the atonement, and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible.
posted July 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm
AC @ July 3, 2007 9:09 PM
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
Congratualtions AC. I should probably have seen that one coming, but I confess you successfully blindsided me. Presumably, you prepared your responses before you’d even posted your questions, and your major criterion for whether or not to include a question was whether you could find chapter and verse about it. Is this why you insisted on one-word answers — because you didn’t want to risk someobody explaining our position before you damned us all to hellfire? Your questions were notable for some surprising omissions. Not one about the holy communion and its symbolism, for example; an odd omission in a debate about the Christianity of one’s religious practice, since it is, after all, probably the most fundamental of Christian rituals. It’s tempted to assume that, knowing the answer already, you couldn’t see any possibility of getting in a cheap shot around it.
However, I can quote scripture too, and I doubt you know your Bible quite as well as you think you do. Ignoring the questions that we agreed on takes us to #5:
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Psalms 82, 6-7: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”
Matthew 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Now, please correct me if I’m wrong here, but last time I read my Bible, the Father in heaven was actually a god. So how are we going to be perfect as He is without being gods?
Romans 8:17 “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
Can you explain to me at what point Jesus created Himself?
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
Revelations 12: 7-9 “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
So if Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, when exactly did Christ create him?
Do you believe that evil exists in heaven? Do you believe God (or Jesus) would create evil? or make someone evil?
I don’t believe Jesus created the devil. I think Lucifer (meaning “bringer of Light”) became the devil through his own choices and actions.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Having established that Jesus didn’t create the devil, and Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, it’s a reasonable assumption, even relying solely on the Bible, that Lucifer is Christ’s spiritual brother.
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
I said you would misinterpret my yes/no answers without some explanation of where I’m coming from! I wasn’t talking just about humans as bodies of flesh and bone, but as pre-mortal spirit beings.
Job 38:4-7 (Yes, I know you quoted verse 4, but you didn’t read the next three verses, did you!) “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
So did the sons of God shout for joy if they didn’t exist?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”
You can’t return to somewhere you’ve never been.
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;”
Romans 9:29 “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son”
Ephesians 1:4 “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Matthew 20:23 “he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father”
If Christ is the same being as the Father, how is it not His to give?
Matthew 26:39 “And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
John 5:19 “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”
Have you ever been in a positon where you could do nothing except what you’d seen yourself do?
John 8:18 “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”
John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:”
Acts 7:55 “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God”
When was the last time you stood on the right side of yourself?
Questions 15 and 17 are best answered as one:
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us
Exodus 34:34 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods,
My friend, I beg you in the name of Jesus, repent of the false Mormon god and turn to the living God for the forgiveness of your sins! Seriously! … I beg you with all the love in the world, repent!
Do you know the meaning of the word “disingenuous”? My friends do not set traps to blindside me; and those who love me show respect for my religious beliefs, even if they don’t share them.
This is your soul at stake! If you do not repent of the false Mormon god and believe that Christ is who the Bible says He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell.
But I thought we were saved by grace? Hasn’t that been your major argument all along? That if we accept Christ as our Savior, and take His atoning sacrifice upon us, then we are saved. In your questions, the role of Jesus Christ was at least one thing that we agreed upon. Which means, by your own arguments, that we Mormons are saved; and if we persist in an erroneous belief in the Book of Mormon, that is just one more sin for which Jesus Christ atoned; and nobody’s going to burn anywhere; and you really haven’t thought this one all the way through, have you!
posted July 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Brothers and sisters. Please do not fall into the trap that often happens to those followers of revealed truth. Many of us have forgotten the basic message of the Gospels. The leaders of the Church that Jesus grew up in did not perceive Jesus as a Jew but as of the devil because he was not one of them. “Who is this man?” “Where did he get this knowledge?” “Did we lay hands on him?” “Is he not the carpenters son?” “This man casts out demons by the prince of demons.”
Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me.” The first followers of Jesus called themselves “Followers of the way” not “christians”. Throughout the gospels we see a contrast between those who think the way to the Father is through their religious system, tradition, or way of worship and those who follow “The Way” to the Father by way of practicing it in their everyday life. Todays de-emphasis on works (fruit) by modern day “Christians” has taken away from what it means to be a “true christian” or “follower of the WAY”
The parable of “The Good Samaritan” plays upon the battle between those who think that you have to worship at the Temple and those who do not. Jesus portrays the Samaritan as the one who was the “true” follower of the way because of his works of mercy toward another of God’s children regardless of what his denomination may be. That is why at the last judgement the sheep and the goats are seperated by their fruit and not their religious affilliation. God is the Father of all people that is why a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist or any other religion for that matter, may get into the kingdom before one who claims to be a christian. Remember, “To whom much is given, much is expected”
Be well…….Michael
posted July 4, 2007 at 2:32 pm
People often assume that Mormons aren’t Christians because of things they’ve read or overheard, but it pays to do a little fact checking.
CHARGE #1
“Why is Mormonism a non Christian religion? It is not Christian because it denies that there is only one God …”
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is ONE GOD, without end. Amen.” (2 Nephi 21:31)
CHARGE #2
“[Mormonism] denies the true Gospel, adds works to salvation …”
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” (2 Nephi 10:24)
“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)
“Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things.” (Jacob 4:7)
“Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.” (Moroni 10:32-33)
CHARGE #3
“[Mormonism] denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator …”
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
“Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.” (2 Nephi 9:5)
“And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.” (Mosiah 3:8)
CHARGE #4
“[Mormonism] distorts the biblical teaching of the atonement…”
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
“And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.
For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.
For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.” (Alma 34:8-10)
CHARGE #5
“[Mormonism] undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible.”
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
“And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.
Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.” (2 Nephi 29:3-8)
“And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.
And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the cconvincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.” (1 Nephi 13:38-40)
“Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.” (2 Nephi 3:12)
posted July 4, 2007 at 2:55 pm
If Jesus really is Lord and Savior, then only He has authority to determine who belongs to His fold.
That is correct, Roper.
The whole pointlessness of this debate is that people want to use a linguistic distinction (the definition of the word “Christian”) to judge whether others belong to Christ.
I specifically said in earlier posts that I am NOT determining who belongs to Christ. I am determining what is Christian, and what is not. If Christianity is false, then Christians do not belong to Christ in the way they think they do. If Mormonism is right, they are the Truest of all followers of Christ. But they would still not belong to *Christianity* because Christianity is something different than Mormonism. If Mormons are the Truest of all followers of Christ, it is deceptive and devilish work to equate them with Christians, who would not be.
posted July 4, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:
It’s not a question of meaning but of authority. Given that Christianity has more flavors than Basken Robins, it’s only fair to ask, “Who gets to decide which group or groups or proper Christians – and which aren’t?”
You are avoiding Truth, and you make me wonder if it isn’t intentional. Christianity is unified in the Doctrine of the Trinity, in spite of the Baskin Robbins effect that has fragmented it. In all it’s fragementation, it still has a Unity in Christ. That’s a pretty amazing thing, and a testament to the power of Christ. You would undermine and destroy that Unity. You would destroy what it means for your own gains. You are an enemy of Truth and meaning. I doubt it is intentional, but you are doing the work of the great deceiver, Satan.
I’ve said it a dozen times, but I’m about through saying it. No one gets to decide what Christianity is. (So no one gets to decide which groups are proper Christians.) Christianity is what it is, and your attempt to destroy what Christianity means does not change what it always has been.
The rest of what you said was a mix of more rehashed stuff I already handled and some ad hominem, so I’ll leave it be.
I don’t think there is much more to accomplish here, either. All we are getting is repetitions of the same tactics without actually facing the destruction to meaning that they are doing.
posted July 4, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Anon: “If Mormons are the Truest of all followers of Christ, it is deceptive and devilish work to equate them with Christians”
You know what I’m getting tired of? It’s all you non-Mormons and your silly false dichotomy that if Mormons aren’t one thing, they must be involved in some sort of conspiracy to deceive. Why can’t you all just accept that we have a different definition of christianity than you do?
Who was it who decreed with such unquestionable authority that Christianity requires conforming to a set of doctrines of Catholic origin?
Newsflash, brainiacs! Mormons aren’t Catholics! So why would we conform to Catholic doctrine?
This is Wikipedia’s definition of Christianity, which sounds pretty good to me:
“Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and they see the New Testament as the record of the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus.”
posted July 4, 2007 at 5:10 pm
There is a simple answer to this debate. The following is what the Bible teaches. There are 5 principles that all must [Christians] believe to have eternal life:
1) Heaven is a free gift, and cannot be earned, or deserved.
2) Man is a sinner, and cannot save himself. Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever lusted after another, which Jesus said is committing adultery in your heart? Have you ever disobeyed your parents? Have you always put God first? Well, we have all broken one commandment or another. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
3) God is merciful, but, just as merciful as He is, He is also just. He must punish sin, but does not want to punish us.
The ultimate statistic, 100% of us will die. We will face judgment when we do. Have you broken a commandment? If so, God must punish that sin. Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. If you fall short, on your own merit, you will go to Hell.
4) However, God provided a way. Jesus was fully man, fully God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:1,14
Jesus came to earth to fulfill the Old Testament. We are all guilty, yet, Jesus came to pay the sin debt we all owe. He was horribly beaten, crucified, and separated from the Father. He took this punishment, and died, to first glorify God, and then to pay our sin debt. “It is finished”, this word in Greek is teleo, which means: to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt): – accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform. If we attempt to pay more, ie, use our good works to pay for our entrance to Heaven, we are offending God. It’s like spitting in the face of God. No, our good works are obedience, and nothing more. Our payment is already made.
5) How do accept this gift? 2 parts.
a) We repent. We not only tell God from the bottom of our hearts that we are sorry, but, we turn from those sins, doing our best to never again do those evil deeds.
b) If we truly repent, we see God for who He is, and have saving faith. This is not mere head knowledge. This is not temporarily relying on God for different things. This is trusting God with our entire lives, and having Jesus as Lord and Savior.
If Mormons, or, anyone else believes and accepts these 5 premises, I’d say they are Christian and have eternal life. Certain other subjects in the Bible we won’t fully understand until we meet our Maker.
posted July 4, 2007 at 5:15 pm
There is an old saying, “Just ’cause the cat has her kittens in the oven doesn’t mean they are bisquits”
The flip side is you can call yourself anything you want. Overall, Jesus’ message, as proclaimed in the Gospels at least is you can call yourself anything, but a person’s faith is proclaimed by how they acquit themselves. Subscriptions to doctrine, dogma, or creeds just gets you a membership card into one “club house” or another. Lots of the “members” are less “Christian” than folks who have never chosen to join. Personally I prefer neoMarxian dogma – Groucho’s that is — “I would never join a club that would have me as a member”. If they call themselves Christian, so What!?! – Or as the great philiosopher Garfield put it, Big Fat Hairy Deal.
Happy 4th of July – patriots, Chrsistians, and everyone else!
posted July 4, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Jestrfyl,
I agree. Matter of fact, I’m believe that true Christ following isn’t a religion anyways. Saving faith isn’t found in a church, and there isn’t anything that makes a church holy. Believers, the church, is the religion. There are plenty in any church that do not have eternal life, which is scary.
posted July 4, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you?” “When you did it to the least, you did it to me?” Tell me all you “Heaven is mine, and all those just like me – the rest of you, stay away” types: Does that person KNOW Christ? Yes. Christ says so, even if you don’t. But do they know the “name” of Christ by which they supposedly must be saved? They’re obviously unfamiliar with the Bible – if they had read the book of Matthew during their lives on earth, they wouldn’t have asked the above question. So they don’t know Christ’s name, but Christ says they really did help (feed) him, at which point they definitely got to know him. And so they may enter Heaven.
Hmm. How can that be? Isn’t it by the name of “Jesus” that we’re saved?
Well, Christ’s name isn’t like our name. I might know your name to get your attention, but God’s name isn’t one of those. Rather, God’s “name,” like everything about God, is about his essence – God doesn’t have attributes separate from God himself. God doesn’t just love. God IS love. Moses asked God for his name, and he replied, “I Am Who Am.” That is, “I’m existence itself – all that exists was created through me.” That’s not a name meant to get God’s attention. That a name meant to describe God’s himself, his very essence.
You and I will also get a name like that in heaven. God knows us now better than we know ourselves. But in Heaven, I’ll finally know myself fully, as God does. Does my name “Tom” describe that. I certainly doubt it. Shouldn’t I have a name that describes my essence, created in the mind of God from all time? Of course. And so Revelation 2:17 says, “[To] Everyone who overcomes . . . I will give a white stone, and on the stone will be engraved a new name that no one knows except the one receiving it.” It will be just between me and God, forever. That is, even in Heaven there’s a bit of privacy. There’s at least one secret between God and me that just we know, and that’s my utter core. And all in Heaven get to spend the rest of eternity discovering each other as we unfold, a process that will never end.
So knowing Christ’s “name” means knowing Jesus himself – not what were suppose to vocalize to get his attention, so we can get to Heaven. Using Jesus’s name the latter way doesn’t get you to Heaven. “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the Kindom of Heaven, but they who do the will of my Father who is in Heaven. . . . Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? . . . and I will say to them, ‘I never knew you.’ ” The Bible doesn’t have to specifically point out these distinctions between the two Testaments for us to be expected to make the connection.
You have a personal relationship with Jesus? Good. But so do many others who can’t quite place the name. Or even know what “orthodoxy” means. You notice that it’s all about orthodoxy with Dr. Mohler, never about Jesus, the man himself. Never.
posted July 4, 2007 at 5:35 pm
You know what I’m getting tired of? It’s all you non-Mormons and your silly false dichotomy that if Mormons aren’t one thing, they must be involved in some sort of conspiracy to deceive. Why can’t you all just accept that we have a different definition of christianity than you do?
Wait a minute, Mormon and Angry, you are one of the Mormons who said that you were not Christian. You are not involved in this deception. So, you told us earlier that you don’t have a different definition–you claimed you rejected being called a Christian. Because of this, in spite of your vituperative style, you gained my respect.
Have you changed your mind?
Also, I have not said there is a conspiracy. I don’t know where this comes from, I only see that most of the Mormons in this discussion are taking the same approach. It is a huge *error*, whether it is a conspiracy to deceive, or not. It is the work of the Deceiver, whether it is intended to be, or not.
I do apologize if the general use of “Mormons” sometimes seems to include those who have honorably recognized the Truth. At times, I probably should have clarified that I meant “Mormons who claim to be Christians,” but it should have been obvious that is what I meant.
Who was it who decreed with such unquestionable authority that Christianity requires conforming to a set of doctrines of Catholic origin?
The fact that they happen to be of Catholic origin is beside the point. These doctrines are either an essential part of what Christianity is, or they are not. Any honest look at Christianity will show that the doctrine of the Trinity *is* essential.
Newsflash, brainiacs! Mormons aren’t Catholics! So why would we conform to Catholic doctrine?
I’m not asking for your conformity. I’m asking for a proper respect for meaning, and specifically for the meaning of Christianity. I am asking that the participants here not do violence to meaning in cooperation with Satan.
This is Wikipedia’s definition of Christianity, which sounds pretty good to me:
Wikireality is nothing close to anything reliable. If you think it is, maybe I will go into the section on Mormonism and make sure it is edited to say “Mormons are not Christians.”
posted July 4, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Brian, you are simply compiling a list that pleases you. You are not examining Christianity for what it actually *is*. People who honor meaning also honor…y’know… reality. If the Nature of God is not a defining thing in a religion–there really isn’t any meaning to the religion at all.
By diminishing meaning, you diminish Mormonism, too.
posted July 4, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Anon,
That list which you say is arbitrary is repeated over and over in the Bible.
Which goes back to how the Bible was canonized, and certain other books were left out. The standard they used was that if a new book to be added contradicted any of the foundations of the books that were accepted, then, they were left out.
Using that premise, and my understanding of the book of Mormon, it would’ve been left out of canonization of the Bible if it existed at that time.
posted July 4, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Anon 5.35 “I’m asking for a proper respect for meaning, and specifically for the meaning of Christianity … Wikireality is nothing close to anything reliable.”
Why do I suspect you’d consider the Library of Congress unreliable if it didn’t support your view? But we could try Oxford University’s definition of Christianity: “the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Or Christian: “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity. ”
Nothing about the trinity there. So I guess Oxford University is pretty unreliable, huh?
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/christian
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/christianity
“Have you changed your mind?”
No. But I have gotten tired of all this nonsense that we’ve got some huge conspiracy of deception! How frickin’ paranoid! If you believe that, you need therapy.
You should really lay off all the “Kumbaya” and clapping. The vibrations are disturbing your mental abilities.
posted July 4, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Wizard of Id,
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
I did not blindside you. It does not matter how you justify your wrong answers, they remain wrong answers. For example, you say there is more than one God? That is a wrong heretical answer no matter HOW you justifiy it or explain it. As far as why a topic such as the Lord’s Supper is omitted, honestly, it didnt even cross my mind. I have no clue what Mormons believe regarding it. We can discuss it some other time. I will now attempt to answer some of your rebuttals but after that I am done with this thread.
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Psalms 82, 6-7: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”
He called them gods in the sense that He had appointed them rulers and judges over the people.That is all it means.
Has Satan actually bewitched you to believe that you are or will be a God?
Wizard of Id, I am telling you the truth, if this verse applies to you:
“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:14
Then so does this one:
“Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” Isaiah 14:15
***Matthew 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Now, please correct me if I’m wrong here, but last time I read my Bible, the Father in heaven was actually a god. So how are we going to be perfect as He is without being gods?
The Father in heaven is not “actually a god” rather He is the one and only God. How are we to be perfect? By trusting in Jesus Christ (the Jesus of the Bible that is, not the Mormon one). Through faith in Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the cross and resurrection a sinner is declared perfect in God’s sight… through faith.. not of works lest any man should boast.
Romans 8:17 “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
This says nothing about Wizard of Id being “God” or ever being formed into a “God” which would obviously contradict Isaiah 43:10. All it says is that we will be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. NOT that we will be heirs of God’s Godhood. Again I tell you that according to the Bible the only one who promises people they will become Gods is the Devil:
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4-5
That is the same thing he is telling you through Mormon teachings: You shall not surely die. You shall be as God.
Oh man. I beg you to repent of this foolishness and turn to the living God. Dont believe the devil. He is a liar and a murderer.
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
***Can you explain to me at what point Jesus created Himself?
Very funny. I thought of putting the clause “not including Himself” but I thought it was a given being the case that the Bible clearly says He is eternal. I’ll clarify it OK?
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything (excluding God who is eternal) whether visible or invisible including the devil, angels, demons, heaven, hell, spirits of humans, etc. ? The Bible says He did, yet you deny it.
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
Revelations 12: 7-9 “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
***So if Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, when exactly did Christ create him?
If Lucifer was in heaven before the creation of what? The creation of heaven? Or the creation of earth etc? I dont know when exactly it was that this war took place all that I know is that it took place after God created heaven and the angels and before Adam fell. Either way this says nothing of Lucifer being uncreated.
***Do you believe that evil exists in heaven?
No.
The first time evil was found in someone in heaven the being was cast out of heaven as the passage above states.
In Job it says that Satan came before God and in other parts of the Bible it says that Satan is our accuser. But do his accusations take place in the heaven Revelation 12:7-9 so clearly says he was cast out of? No .
***Do you believe God (or Jesus) would create evil?
No. God did not create evil but He allows it for His sovereign purpose.
***or make someone evil?
No. God created man “good” and man then chose to do evil. The same goes for Satan.
***I don’t believe Jesus created the devil. I think Lucifer (meaning “bringer of Light”) became the devil through his own choices and actions.
Very funny. Here we go with the word games again. Did Jesus Christ create Lucifer then? The Bible says Christ did create Lucifer meanwhile you deny it.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
***Having established that Jesus didn’t create the devil, and Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, it’s a reasonable assumption, even relying solely on the Bible, that Lucifer is Christ’s spiritual brother.
This is just straight-up blasphemy. We clearly believe in two different Jesus’. The Apostle Paul, as he was moved by God the Holy Spirit, said:
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him…” 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
It is the biblical position that the Mormon Jesus is “another Jesus” of “another spirit” of “another gospel”. According to the Bible: preachers of and followers of this false Jesus, false spirit, false gospel are “accursed”.
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
****I said you would misinterpret my yes/no answers without some explanation of where I’m coming from! I wasn’t talking just about humans as bodies of flesh and bone, but as pre-mortal spirit beings.
I did not misinterpret. I knew exactly what you meant. It is still heresy.
Job 38:4-7 (Yes, I know you quoted verse 4, but you didn’t read the next three verses, did you!) “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
***So did the sons of God shout for joy if they didn’t exist?
All this says is that the morning stars and sons of God (created angels) shouted for joy while God created the earth. In fact, the Bible actually (very clearly) says that God created the angels:
“Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” Nehemiah 9:6
and here:
“Praise ye him, all his angels… Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.” Psalm 128:2a, 5
Ecclesiastes 12:7 “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”
***You can’t return to somewhere you’ve never been.
This is one is easy. God creates a spirit-flesh being that previously did not exist. The spirit-flesh being dies and the flesh returns to the dust while the spirit returns unto God who gave it.
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;”
Romans 9:29 “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son”
Ephesians 1:4 “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”
Yes the Bible teaches that God knew me from before I was born even from before the foundation of the world etc. (He actually knows everything btw, He is omniscient) What it does not teach is that I existed from before the foundation of the world, that would be heresy.
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Matthew 20:23 “he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father”
Matthew 26:39 “And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
John 5:19 “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”
John 8:18 “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”
John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:”
Acts 7:55 “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God”
***Have you ever been in a positon where you could do nothing except what you’d seen yourself do?
***If Christ is the same being as the Father, how is it not His to give?
***When was the last time you stood on the right side of yourself?
This is best answered by explaining the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
The Father is not the Son neither is He the Holy Spirit. The Father is God.
The Son is not the Father neither is He the Holy Spirit. The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father neither is He the Son. The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three Gods. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct Persons who co-eternally exist as ONE God.
Therefore, yes the Son prayed to the Father and did what the Father told Him etc, even so, they are not 2 Gods, but ONE.
***Questions 15 and 17 are best answered as one:
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us.
Yes, the ONE God sometimes refers to Himself as “us” and “we”. That is because He is Tri-Une in nature.
Exodus 34:34 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods,
To borrow from Anon, if someone made up a god called Bobbo who is a stale crusty donut… The God of the Bible says that He is the God of EVERYTHING including this false god that does not even exist and for that reason He commands you not to worship this false god called Bobbo because the true living God is a jealous God who will punish that.
****My friend, I beg you in the name of Jesus, repent of the false Mormon god and turn to the living God for the forgiveness of your sins! Seriously! … I beg you with all the love in the world, repent!
****Do you know the meaning of the word “disingenuous”? My friends do not set traps to blindside me; and those who love me show respect for my religious beliefs, even if they don’t share them.
I disagree about whether I blindsided you. I asked you straight-forward questions that have a straight-forward correct biblical answers. If they are answered wrong then they must be corrected despite the excuse of why they were answered wrong. Again, like I said above, if you believe in more than One God, no matter how you think you can justifiy it, you are stll wrong and need to repent. I do love you and dont want to see you perish.
****This is your soul at stake! If you do not repent of the false Mormon god and believe that Christ is who the Bible says He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell.
****But I thought we were saved by grace? Hasn’t that been your major argument all along? That if we accept Christ as our Savior, and take His atoning sacrifice upon us, then we are saved. In your questions, the role of Jesus Christ was at least one thing that we agreed upon. Which means, by your own arguments, that we Mormons are saved; and if we persist in an erroneous belief in the Book of Mormon, that is just one more sin for which Jesus Christ atoned; and nobody’s going to burn anywhere; and you really haven’t thought this one all the way through, have you!
I have thought it out. The whole point is that it matters *which* Jesus you are believing in. If you are believing in a false Jesus you are not and cannot be saved.Jesus said that if you do not believe that He is He (the God of the Bible, not the Mormon one) then you will die in your sins. The Jesus of the Bible saves. The Mormon Jesus condemns.
posted July 4, 2007 at 11:03 pm
One correction before I go. I want to clarify what I meant when I said that “If you are believing in a false Jesus you are not and cannot be saved.”
I did not mean that there if you are believing in a false Jesus you cannot be saved as in there is no hope for you. What I did mean is that if you are believing in a false Jesus you are not saved. While you are alive there is hope. This hope is in Jesus Christ of the Bible who is the Second Person of the Trinity.
Repent and believe in Him (the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Jesus Christ of the Bible) and you will be saved and pass from death unto life!
posted July 4, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Oh come folks! It seems that no matter what biblical proof one gives of the foundation that Yeshua laid for those who would call themselves His disciples many of you ignore them and insist that Mormons are Christians despite their contradictory writngs. We live in an age when many think that whatever you feel or think about a particular subject is right just because you think and feel it’s right. So if a group wants to call themselves Christian you say well they are Christians even though they contradict what the Founder said were the hallmarks of Christianity. I bet if you went to see your favorite team play their game ( a game long established with rules so you’d know what to expect when you showed up)and you got there and your team was playing a different game you’d want your tickets back! Well Christianity is a lot more important than that. What’s the harm someone asked–wellthe harm is that error has infiltrated true (gasp–yes I said true—objective truth) Christianity and many souls are at peril. In the last day Yeshua said He will say to those who said that they did all this in His name and He will say depart from me you evil doers I know you not! Matthew 7:22-23. So there will be those who profess His name yet Yeshua does not say, “ok you meant well and you thought you were doing good, even though you contradicted what I said in my original scriptures written by those who personally knew me or thier associates, and claimed I gave you additional revelations which contradicted everything I said in my previous scriptures, but that’s ok you’re forgiven, enter into my kingdom I have prepared for you”. No Yeshua tells them to leave! And you know what that means.
So if you chose to be decieved so be it! When the handwriting is on the wall, when Yeshua says, narrow is the way that leads to salvation and few that be that find it — I guess He’s talking to you foolish thinking people who chose to believe lies (Matt 7:14/1 Timothy 4:1-2)!
I will continue to pray that some (and some will) believe in His Word as presented in the Bible handed down to us from those who were closest in time to Him. And to Whom the Tenakh (Old Testament) pointed to.
Down through the ages there will be those who will preserve the Truth as best we can until He returns!
Peace and Blessing to All!
Minister Levia!
http://www.communityinyeshuathemessiah.org
posted July 4, 2007 at 11:20 pm
After reading this last post, I have to give points to the Mormons.
For example, AC claims Mormons are beliving the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden. He is careful to say Mormons believe that “they will not die”, which 1) wasn’t the point and 2) isn’t true as far as I can see.
The verses in question say:
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. – Genesis 3
So Satan makes two promises: 1) they will not die and 2) Their eyes will be opened, making them “as gods”.
But in the next few verses it says:
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God awalking in the garden bin the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
So their eyes were opened, so Satan wasn’t lying about that. But were they “as gods”? Lets read more:
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So, God himself acknowledges that they were “as one of us”. In other words gods (but not God). 2 points to the Mormons.
posted July 5, 2007 at 12:29 am
Mormon and Angry, you really crack me up. I seriously don’t know what to think of you now. First you say that Mormons are not Christians, then you fight for the right to call yourself Christians, and now you are using secular sources to support your new point of view in a typical postmodern fashion. (Instead of looking at the nature of the thing in question, you are looking for words and glossaries to dictate what that thing is.) Here’s a hint: Dictionary definitions do not ever come close to capturing the full nature–the *essential* nature–of the object it describes. The definitions are always incomplete approximations for the convenience of communication. *And*, they are prone to error and do not always agree with other “authoritative” dictionaries. They *never* pretend to capture the full nature of something as great and vast as Christianity.
I don’t know why you are so angry, but I’m really not out to discredit Mormonism in any way. In fact, I am ultimately fighting to keep Mormonism from being lost in meaninglessness, too. I hope you find yourself on the side of clarity and Truth.
God bless you, man. Whatever it is you believe.
posted July 5, 2007 at 12:36 am
That list which you say is arbitrary is repeated over and over in the Bible.
You misunderstand me, Brian. I don’t deny that your list shows elements that can be found in Christianity. I reject the notion that you can make an arbitrary list of attributes and pretend that it covers all *essential* attributes of Christianity.
Mormonism does, indeed, share some attributes and ideas with Christianity. But that doesn’t make it Christian.
You can try to pass off a watch because it has a dial, two hands, and a watchband. But without the insides, it’s not a watch. To pass it off as a watch is chicanery. Forgive me for exposing the swindle.
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:12 am
For the record.
Our unnamed poster submitted the following:
After a thoughtful reply to a previous post, Roper’s reply was “*Right, but you still ain’t a Christian.” Well, that seems to be the trump card in this discussion, which makes it all so pointless. Dr. Mohler and the rest will continue to play that trump card over and over, it doesn’t make a difference.
Actually, that “Right but you still ain’t a Christian” was POC777′s response to my (Roper’s) post.
Just didn’t want any of my friends from other forums to think I had apostatized from the LDS faith
*But I thought you said “I apostasized” because you confessed:
I have recognized that I am a sinner
I have realize that Jesus Christ has died in my place for my sins and can’t save myself.
I have repented of all my sins
And for the cream topping
I HAVE RECEIVED JESUS CHRIST AS MY LORD AND SAVIOR!
So you are a Christian–and have apostasized from LDS, how odd!
I will find your post and remind you exactly what you said!
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:23 am
AC: “The whole point is that it matters *which* Jesus you are believing in.i>”
Now it’s your turn to give a yes/no answer: There’s two Jesuses?
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:24 am
Having slogged through most of the comments here, I have a better understanding of Christ’s frustration with and condemnation of the Pharisees.
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting — it has been found difficult and left untried.” (G. K. Chesterton)
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:25 am
AC, you might do well to read Luke 12:47-48.
“The slave who knew his master’s wishes but did not prepare to fulfill them will get a severe beating, whereas the one who did not know them and who nonetheless deserved to be flogged will get off with fewer stripes. When much has been given a man, much will be asked of a man to whom more has been entrusted.”
This tells me that you and I have to worry far more about our punishment than the Mormons do. Jesus will be easier on them for not knowing the requirements of Christianity.
Additionally, if you are going to take the sola scriptura approach to Scripture, you might want to heed this:
“Thereupon Jesus said to them: “Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not east the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Many of his disciples heard this and objected to it, but Jesus repeated it three times to make it clear he meant what he said. Many disciples abandoned him because it was too difficult for them to take. The Apostles, who were the foundation of the Catholic Church, accepted what he said.
So, if you insist upon the Mormon’s losing their souls because of how you personally interpret Scripture, you have a difficulty above, because Christ doesn’t give you much wiggling room about what he means. And he says that you have no life within you if you do not eat his flesh and drink his blood.
From my point of view, you, like the Mormons, have ignorance of Jesus’s commands to you, so you may not get “striped” for not partaking in the Eucharist. However, from your sola scriptura point of view–your soul is in great peril. Were I in your shoes, I would worry more about the grave peril of your own soul, rather than worry about playing God and informing the Mormons of their damnation.
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:31 am
Okay POC777,
One last attempt at reasonable discussion here.
From POC:
You are Christian if you have….
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can’t save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian–if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
My response:
1. I am a sinner and cannot save myself.
2. I absolutely affirm that Jesus gave His life for me.
3. I repent daily and plead to Him to forgive my sins and strengthen my weakness.
How does He strengthen you?
4. I received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior when I was baptized, and “I believe I have continued that relationship throughout my life”.
**Keep in mind: Conversion by your mind and conversion by your heart are different. Conversion in your mind is not true conversion at all–but by the heart is true conversion–that’s real. Once Jesus comes into your “heart” you don’t follow anything else but Him and the Bible. You might’ve walked away from the LORD–Christianity comes from Him. Then you decided to jump into the bandwagon into Mormonism. That’s just an assumption. Not because you “know” much about Christianity, makes you a Christian. You become a Christian after Jesus becomes LORD and SAVIOR–you deny LDS completely–LDS: denies, opposes and contradicts God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, the Bible and Christianity. God doesn’t contradict Himself!
*Baptism is a sacarment–immersed in a pool of water will never save you–the atonement of Jesus blood will. Baptism has no power to save anyone–the gospel message(in the Bible) saves. It is religious to be baptized without conversion–that is self-righteous–God doesn’t want your religion but your whole heart. He wants you. First, is conversion to Christianity–regeneration, secondly, its idenification in water baptism–the person has spiritual died and resurrected with Jesus Christ–a watery grave–to now live the newness of life for God. Without accepting Jesus Christ into your heart first, means nothing. Even Jehovah’s Witness, get baptized–they are not saved, but lost in their sins.
All of these are Articles of Faith–official public declarations of doctrine–of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*It doesn’t matter, what matters is “if” have accepted Jesus Christ into your heart and life–now if you haven’t you are lost.
Do I qualify yet, POC?
From POC:
I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don’t belong to Him.
My response:
You have placed yourself in the position of Jesus Christ to judge whether I (and LDS saints in general) belong to His fold–a decidedly un-Christian position and one expressly forbidden by Jesus himself. Our conversation is over.
**His fold?
**No, I’m only defending the Christian faith from woves in sheep’s clothing–who are trying to separate the flock.
*Right, but you still ain’t a Christian.
Posted by: Roper | July 1, 2007 8:30 PM
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:40 am
This question is directed to everyone in this debate and I need an honest response so here I go:
If you were to die today(God forbid) and were standing at the pearly gates of Heaven–and God will tell you. “Why should I open the gates and allow you into Heaven, why?” What will you say to Him?
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:45 am
And to all those who quote “judge not, lest ye be judged” please do some research on hermeneutics. That verse is simply not the blanket statement that people love to use it as. [posted by Chad]
hmmm, reading the above statement in context, Matthew 7:1-5, or in Luke 6:36-37, where the ideas of mercy and forgiveness are included, I see no problem in taking it to mean just what it says, that it is not our job to either judge or condemn our neighbours, whatever their beliefs may be.
to my sense, a Christian is one who follows Christ, in word and deed; who obeys Jesus’ two great Commandments, as given in Matthew 22:37-39. also a pretty definition of who is ‘of God’ and ‘knows God’ is given in 1 John 4:7.
IMHO, it is time this doctrinal bickering and condemning any who do not believe ‘my way’ should STOP, and we all should pay more attention to living as Christ commanded.
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:57 am
I think some others would do well to realize that it is one thing to say that Mormonism is not within Christianity, and another thing entirely to say they do not belong to Christ.
If Mormonism is true, they clearly belong to Christ. Christianity would then be wrong, and Christians might belong to Christ in spite of that.
If Christianity is true, Christians clearly belong to Christ. Mormonism would then be wrong, and the Mormons might belong to Christ in spite of that.
Christ died **for the whole world**. He died for everyone who ever lived with or without the advantage of Christian teaching. He will judge us according to what we are dealt, and we have no business judging anyone else–neither their hearts, nor their eternal destination. Those who make such judgments are clearly disobeying the commands of God. They put their own souls in peril. Using their own personal interpretation of Scripture as their gavel of personal authority is no excuse.
Mormons, I pray that all of you belong to Christ. I pray that the atheists and the Buddhists belong to Christ. I pray that the Animists and the Muslims belong to Christ. I pray that Jesus’s mercy extend to all. I pray that Satan get no claim over any of you.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:02 am
And, while we are at it, there is also a huge difference between judging the hearts of men and condemning them to hell, which is strictly forbidden, and making judgment about meaning and judgments about morality.
So–
Mormons going to hell?
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:05 am
Now it’s your turn to give a yes/no answer: There’s two Jesuses?
*Mormonism claims that Jesus preached the Gospel to the Indians in the Americas on 34 AD.
*However, there is absolutely no accounts of Jesus ever visiting the Americas or even preaching to Indians on 34 AD. No evidence has ever been found!
*Christianity claims that Jesus preached the gospel in the four books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Evidence have been found!
*There is many accounts that Jesus came to this world as God in the flesh to die for mankind on the cross—to save them from Hell.
*So there you have it, the Mormon Jesus supposely preached to the Indians on 34 AD(one year after His resurrection) and the Jesus from the Bible, preached the gospel to those who were lost.
*The Mormon Jesus comes from Joseph Smith’s imagination and the biblical Jesus comes from the Bible. The Christian preaches the Jesus from the Bible; the Mormon preaches a different Jesus, not from the Bible.
*Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:4 “For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it.
So…..
*The Mormon Jesus–is “another Jesus”–he is not same Jesus from the Bible.
*The Mormon has a “different spirit”–that is not the Holy Spirit.
*The Mormon preaches a “different gospel” not the same one Jesus taught in the four gospels.
*So the Mormon Jesus–is not the same Jesus from the Bible, he is different.
*There is only one Jesus Christ– and He comes from the Bible!
Posted by: Mormon and Angry | July 5, 2007 1:23 AM
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:11 am
This question is directed to everyone in this debate and I need an honest response so here I go:
If you were to die today(God forbid) and were standing at the pearly gates of Heaven–and God will tell you. “Why should I open the gates and allow you into Heaven, why?” What will you say to Him?
I really don’t see the relevance here, but if it were me, I would probably say something like the following:
“My dearly beloved Father, I am fully undeserving, and only You can provide the reason why. But Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for my sins, and those of the whole world.
For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”
What would you say?
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:17 am
Al Mohler presents is argument as he understands. It is pretty straightforward, but there are sections which gives a shallow discussion of Mormon beliefs. For instance he states that Mormons believe in many gods. This implies that Mormons pray and worship other gods beside the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is not true. But I am afraid if a discussion of Mormon beliefs were discussed more deeply it may undermine his argument.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:22 am
For what it’s worth, I really think a lot of POC777′s arguments are pretty poor. But they are not within the focus I have had in this discussion, and I simply don’t have the energy or patience to deal with them.
POC777, I really think you would do well to deal with what Mormonism actually professes as doctrine as it compares to Christian doctrine, rather than spending so much time twisting away at your interpretations of things. I don’t think they prove what you think they do. So what if they think Jesus was in America teaching the Indians? Whether that is right or wrong has little or nothing to do with Who Jesus Christ is.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:25 am
Actually, POC777, in most of your posts, it is quite difficult to tell just what are your words, and what are the words of others. The discussion is almost completely incoherent to me.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:34 am
And, while we are at it, there is also a huge difference between judging the hearts of men and condemning them to hell, which is strictly forbidden, and making judgment about meaning and judgments about morality.
*All those who are “in Christ” make sound judgments from the Bible–they don’t condemned those who don’t know God–their Master didn’t condemn no one when He was on this earth and neither do they condemn those who are Christian–they pray from them to become Christian.
So–
Mormons going to hell?
If they have repented of all their sins–genuine repentance does not mean “I’m sorry God it will never happen again” and then live as you choose. No, it means to completely turn away from all sin and turn to God–change your heart, change the way you live and change the way you think and accepted Jesus Christ as their LORD and Savior, is that simple, yet difficult for most to accept as truth.
Mormons all have evil in their hearts?
*All of us are evil none of of us are good–”there is only One who is good and that is God”. Jesus calls His disciples evil(Matthew 7:11) and in Matthew 15:19 He says that out the heart comes evil things–we live in a corrupted world of sin. We are evil people! Sin is what made our hearts evil–Jesus will remove that evil heart and give anyone who is willing to come to Him–a new heart. Once the person receives a “new heart” Jesus now comes to dwell within the indiviual’s life and will transform the person forever–born again.
Mormons are not Christians?
*Not if they continue to deny what God has instructed the Christian in the Bible.
Using deceptive language is immoral?
*It is not deceptive language, because the Holy Spirit does not lie–He tells the truth everytime. Since He dwells in every Christian–He will now teach them how not to lie anymore(unless it comes from the flesh)–but to always tell the truth.
The Bible verses referred to by others above are clearly of the kind that judges men’s hearts and judge’s their eternal destination. They are clearly not of the kind that makes judgments about morality and meaning.
Jesus said in Matthew 12:30
“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned”.
Posted by: Anon | July 5, 2007 2:02 AM
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:43 am
This question is directed to everyone in this debate and I need an honest response so here I go:
If you were to die today(God forbid) and were standing at the pearly gates of Heaven–and God will tell you. “Why should I open the gates and allow you into Heaven, why?” What will you say to Him?
I really don’t see the relevance here, but if it were me, I would probably say something like the following:
“My dearly beloved Father, I am fully undeserving, and only You can provide the reason why. But Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for my sins, and those of the whole world.
For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”
*What would you say?
“Father, I am a sinner who was saved by your undeserved grace and kindness that led to repentance.Thank you Father, for allowing a wicked and vile person as myself to enter your kingdom–to see your beauty. If it wasn’t for your Son, Jesus Christ dying in my place for my sin debt–I will be separated from You for all eternity–in Hell.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:45 am
In one of my posts above, you see the following:
So–
Mormons going to hell? Mormons all have evil in their hearts? Mormons are not Christians? Using deceptive language is immoral?
That is not how it was intended. Here is another attempt:
So–
Saying Mormons are going to hell is *forbidden*.
Saying Mormons all have evil in their hearts is *forbidden*.
Saying Mormons are not Christians is *not forbidden*.
Saying that using deceptive language is immoral is *not forbidden*.
The first two judge the hearts of men and their eternal destination. These are no-nos. The second two make judgments about meaning and morality, which is perfectly fine. (They may or may not contain error, but they are not forbidden.)
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:47 am
Okay. So what have we accomplished, POC777?
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:53 am
Actually, POC777, part of me wants to tell you that it is really none of your business what the conversation between any individual and Christ will be on judgment day. You are not our confessor, and you are not our God. It is not your place to judge the words we will speak to Christ on that day, nor is it your place to put words in God’s mouth for that occasion. So why do you want to scrutinize them? What gives? Stop hiding the ball and just tell us what your point is.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:07 am
POC777, your comments at 2:34AM, you responded to things that did not get properly posted, so they don’t follow with my discussion. (Not your fault.) Please see the correction I made and respond according to that.
I will, however, respond to this comment of yours:
*Not if they continue to deny what God has instructed the Christian in the Bible.
Without any authority, there are many, many possible interpretations that can be made of the Bible by reasonable men. Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don’t realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations. For example, the Trinitarian doctrine is *essential* to Christianity. A Christian who reads the Bible, interprets it according to the traditional knowledge they already have regarding the Trinity. But a person without that foreknowledge can reasonably interpret it to have meaning that is not inclusive of the Trinity.
So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:30 am
I really, really wish that religious beliefs played absolutely no part in elections at all, period. Because, as you can see from the posts on this thread, it can bring out the worst in people. There are so many people posting here, sincerely convinced of the “rightness” of their own beliefs and interpretations of god and religion. I dare say, each of them also sincerely believes the majority of the others are damned and doomed for all of eternity for not believing as they do. All of them have their prophets and groups of wisemen who have claimed revelations from god and deliberated countless times over their exact meanings. Is Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith really any more valid than any other prophet? Is any ones holy book any more credible than any other? So does it really matter if Mormons are really christians or not? The election of the President of the United States of America shouldn’t be about which particlar religious cult you belong to, it needs to be about the best man or woman possible to lead our country in these very trying times. I personally would rather it wasn’t someone who thinks their god talks to them. Or someone who uses their religious beliefs to make decisions about important issues such as birth control, global warming, abortion, war, stem cell research, education, and alot of other things. These issues require brains, not prophets.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:57 am
Leroy Morte, Like I posted on the other side, I have not been arguing about the “rightness” of Christianity or the “wrongness” of Mormonism. I have been discussing the meaning of Christianity and Mormonism, and fighting against the destruction of meaning.
All the same, I think your implication that these things don’t matter is very misguided.
posted July 5, 2007 at 8:47 am
Roper,
Sorry, I have been working long hours and have been unable to keep up with blogs. I would like to continue our discussion in another format. If you are willing, you can e-mail me at prayin_4u@hotmail.com. Notice: this invitation is to the poster known as Roper only. Thank you.
posted July 5, 2007 at 9:18 am
I believe what is important that we try to live as Christ-like as possible and leave the judgment up to God. We spend so much time trying to disprove everyone else, that we forget to go preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world and fulfil that commandment. God knows our hearts, and He reveals Himself and His knowledge to us. Whatever part of His plan we play, work with what knowledge we have and serve Him well. God will take care of the rest.
posted July 5, 2007 at 9:47 am
After scanning this entire discussion, its amazing to see the utter lack of scriptural exposition given in defense of Mormonism. It appears from this discussion that Mormon apologetics consist of arguments against orthodox Christianity or arguments for a very broad definition of Christianity. NEITHER of these things address the TRUTH of Mormonism.
It matters whether you are worshipping the right Christ. If Christ is a 10 foot tall purple alien to me, and I worship him, believe he is the Savior, trust in him, believe he is the Son of God, etc., etc., then by the Mormon definition, I am Christian. Whether you like it or not, the Mormon version of Christ is different from the Biblical Christ. You cannot deny this fact without denying either Mormon doctrine, or Christian doctrine.
What little Mormon exposition I have seen on here is a few attempts at Greek and Hebrew. The most egregious error I have seen is an attempt to state that “Elohim” is the plural form of God, meaning “Gods”. This translation was given by Joseph Smith in defense of his doctrine on the plurality of gods (google the “King Follet Funeral Discourse”). The only problem here is that Joseph Smith did not speak Hebrew, nor was he trained in Hebrew. Any native Herbrew speaker who is passed the 4th grade and any Hebrew student who has passed a year of Hebrew studies would never make the mistake of tranlating “Elohim” as “Gods” (plural) in the context which it appears in Genesis. Hebrew grammar rules prevent this from happening.
posted July 5, 2007 at 10:44 am
corrections to the above post:
“who is passed” should be “who has passed”
“Herbrew” should be “Hebrew”
posted July 5, 2007 at 10:50 am
I believe what is important that we try to live as Christ-like as possible and leave the judgment up to God.
Cat,
Are you telling us that meaning does not matter, and that we should not care about meaning?
posted July 5, 2007 at 10:53 am
What about Mother/Father God who lives on the planet Kobar? Weird? Not really. In the various Temples, and in the “higher doctrine” a mormon believer will learn that Kobar, wherein God is producing spiritual children to populate the universe, will continue to do so and that is how mormonism will continue to grow. That is why it is so important to know your family’s history to insure that they will follow you to your planet. If your wife isn’t a “good wife”, she will not be “called up” by her husband to his planet after they depart this planet. This is not to mention the various “temple wives” that exist in great numbers today. Think this is insane? Take the time to study the mormon religion in detail and these items, along with others, will shock you. This religion is beyond bizarre.
posted July 5, 2007 at 11:13 am
Continuing Cat’s thread: when the judgment day arrives, we will each stand before Jesus of Nazareth to be judged. What will then be important to our Judge? My recollection is that his instructions were:
“Come, follow me.”
“If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
“Be ye therefore perfect…”
“Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
“My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.”
“But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
posted July 5, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I became a Christian while being raised by devout mormon parents. My father was a high priest…my mother served as relief society president. And I served as the president of our ward’s youth organization. Dubbed as “special” and “spiritual”, I was often asked to give “talks” during weekly services. Monday nights were reserved for our Family Home Evenings, and we concluded each day on our knees in prayer. At 8 years old, I heard the true gospel for the first time when I attended a neighborhood Christian church with a friend. For the first time, I heard a preacher describe my internal struggle with sin perfectly. For the first time, I heard someone describe the sin nature that accompanies each physical birth, and its need for redemption. For the first time, my eyes recognized the cross as the point of origin, where sin dies and new life begins…not a weapon of destruction (which is the perception of mormons whose confused theology denegrates the cross as a weapon used to kill rather than the instrument of salvation.) And finally, I heard the divinity of Christ exalted as the One and Only Way of salvation… Not one of many gods…nor the created son of one of many gods…but the One true God over the heavens and earth through whom all things were made. At 18, I abandoned mormonism, following the Lord’s lead to a Bible Study. After nine years of intense study, God’s Word succeeded in peeling away the scar tissue of deceit, grafting in the truth found only in the Bible.
Do I hate mormons? No, they are not the enemy. I remember what it felt like to be ostracized and abused by many well-intentioned Christians.
Would I vote for a mormon president, who met the qualifications and was a “good” man? Absolutely not… A man caught in such a gruesome web of spiritual deception could not possibly lead a country-in-crisis with God’s strength and discernment. A man who believes that he will one day become a god of his own world will not lead under the yoke and in submission to the God of this universe. Remember Jesus’ words to those deceived by appearances, “Woe to you… You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean…” Matt. 23:27
Do not lower your defenses against this seemingly harmless, peace-loving cult… Heed the warning…”And no wonder, for satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness…” 2 Cor. 11:14-15
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Dr Tom @ 10.53: “Take the time to study the mormon religion in detail and these items, along with others, will shock you. This religion is beyond bizarre”
Bizarre? You should look at what those Christians get up to! You know they actually practice cannibalism? Every Sunday, they go through this ritual where they eat human flesh and drink human blood!
And they drown their children. Some like to wait until their children are a bit older before making them get into a big bath and pushing them under. Others like to get new-born babies and pour water all over them! Barbaric!
Why don’t you just go ahead and take one single aspect of our doctrine, sensationalize it as outrageously as you possibly can, and then present it without any sort of context at all, Dr Tom?
Oh, and by the way, it’s a star, and it’s called Kolob. And you don’t need a temple to learn about this — you could just buy a copy of Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” (available from all good bookstores throughout Utah, and on Amazon). If you’re going to attack us, you’d be advised to get your facts straight. Otherwise, you’re going to end up looking a tad foolish!
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Anonymous @ 5.47: “After scanning this entire discussion, its amazing to see the utter lack of scriptural exposition given in defense of Mormonism”
We’re not discussing the scriptural basis for Mormon doctrine. We’re discussing whether Mormons are Christians or not. What’s to quote?
But you could try scrolling a little further up, to 4th July @ 2.07 and 11.20
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Pops @ 11.13
So what’s your point, Pops?
posted July 5, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Anon @ 12.29: “I’m really not out to discredit Mormonism in any way. In fact, I am ultimately fighting to keep Mormonism from being lost in meaninglessness, too. I hope you find yourself on the side of clarity and Truth.”
Anon, reading your other posts, I actually believe you. I apologize if I didn’t take you seriously at first and painted you along with the other lunatics. I promise to be more respectful (to you, at least) from now on.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Wow,
I feel sorry for so many people on here. I was raised Wesleyan and converted to the LDS church several years ago. I was one that listend to the preacher tell me that Mormons were of a cult and I believed it and went on and was happy in my ignorance. One day I decided to learn for myself after I met some members and saw that they did not seem like weird fanatics drinking poisoned kool aid like I had imagined before. After a loooooong period of devout study, I understood the doctrine and saw that there are no contradictions with what early Christians believed and practiced, so I joined. I’ve never been more fulfilled. I already had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and I certainly did not give that up. I have a much stronger relationship now, and am able to truly feel the Holy Ghost in my everyday life. No the doctrine isn’t easy to understand, and it can seem offensive on some topics at first. But if you so-called Christians (I am speaking to those that view themselves as experts and want want to eliminate the LDS members from the ranks of Christian) would study your scriptures, and not just read them, you would know to look for the occurances that we claim have happened.
We claim an apostasy from Jesus Christ’s church. And we claim to be the restoration of it. Sound weird to you? Read your scriptures . . . That’s right, these things are prophecied to happen. When? Before the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (That’s right, Jesus IS our LORD and SAVIOR, regardless of what some ignorant posters claim on here)
I would think most of Christianity believes we are in the end of times, so why they would not be looking for these prophecies to take place, I haven’t a clue.
You believe I am a member of a mislead cult, well, since you can be so brass as to make this claim, I will be frank as well.
I believe those that think this way, are those that Jesus spoke of that draw near with their mouths but their hearts are far from Him. They seem to me as the Pharisees that “knew” so much of the doctrines and scriptures that they totally missed the Christ. Well, these “Christians” that attack the LDS church are no different. They have fallen into the Devil’s trap. They follow the philosophies of men (I speak of those that took it upon themselves to define the nature of God in Nicea along with all His doctrine).
Think about that and really ponder that I could be right. If you ask in faith and research the LDS church through the proper channels (not the internet or rumors), then I know you’ll find your way.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Gee, a whole 2 posts out of hundreds. The evidence is overwhelming.
Not to mention both posts are surprisingly eisegetical and cannot withstand hermeneutical examination. Its quite easy to rip scripture out of context and misuse it to say what you’d like it to mean. Its another thing to examine it in context and think about the original writer’s intentions.
And we are discussing whether Mormons are Christians or not. If the beliefs and doctrines of Mormons differ from what Christ taught in the Bible, and Christians are followers of Christ, how in the world do you think discussing Mormon doctrine has nothing to do with the discussion?
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:31 pm
http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm
Letters To a Mormon Elder by James White
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:36 pm
You may not be aware that Mormons are discouraged from getting involved with people who want to “scripture bash,” that is, endlessly trading chapter and verse. It’s almost always completely pointless, and has nothing to do with a quest for the truth and everything to do with conceit. Plenty of non-Mormons here have attempted to start one. What I see is Mormons refusing to be sucked in.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Here’s some interesting teachings from Mormon leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young:
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil so that you may see.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-347)
“I might with boldness proclaim that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 6:7)
“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! This is the great secret.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345)
“As man is now God once was; as God now is man may become.” (Lorenzo Snow, 5th President of the LDS Church, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105-106)
“The fact that there is no reference to a Mother in Heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a Mother did exist there.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:142)
“When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-Angel, the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51)
“The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.’” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 345-346)
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son has also; but the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:41 pm
5/7 1.23 AC: “The whole point is that it matters *which* Jesus you are believing in.”
Mormon and Angry @ 1.23 “Now it’s your turn to give a yes/no answer: There’s two Jesuses?”
Thanks, Mormon and Angry. I couldn’t have said it better!
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I thought I would always want to vote for a woman, but Hillary changed my mind.
I thought I would never want to vote for a Mormon, but Mitt Romney changed my mind.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:46 pm
This is incredibly ridiculous and is akin to saying “I’m going to believe what I want to regardless of evidence for truth, and stick my head in the sand and refuse to listen.”
What amazes me is the ability of Mormons avoid or ignore anything that may even slightly conflict with their faith’s teachings.
Your statements brings to mind a child sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling when anyone tries to say anything to him.
I highly respect Mormons who engage in sincere apologetics and I am more than willing to interact with and/or read materials they put forth in defense of their faith.
but i guess I’m just being “sucked in” to discussing truth.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I don’t believe you’re interested in the truth. I think you’re just interested in trying to prove Mormons wrong. There’s a big difference.
Most Mormons I know enjoy a mutually respectful dialog about peoples’ reasons for their beliefs. But when the closest thing to intelligent comment is along the lines of “Well, Song of Solomon chapter 1 verse 2 proves that you’re evil and perverted and you’re going to burn in hell” — well, that gets really boring really quickly.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I Testify To You…
That there is one true and eternal God, unchangeable, unique, all-powerful.1
That this one true God created all things; there is nothing that exists anywhere that He did not bring into existence.2
That this one true God is spirit, and is not limited to time and space, both of which He himself created.3
That man is the creation of God, and God should not be thought of as an exalted man.4
That Jesus Christ has eternally existed as God.5
That Jesus Christ created all things.6
That the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin.7
That man is spiritually dead, enslaved to sin, unable to come to Christ outside of the Father’s enablement.8
That full and complete salvation is the work of God’s grace.9
That the Bible is God’s inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient revelation to man, in need of no supplements.10
This is my testimony, one that I believe is given to me by the Holy Spirit of God. The Bible says the Spirit of God witnesses to our spirits that we are the children of God (Romans 8:16) and that He leads His people into all truth (John 16:13).
I share this testimony with you because I believe the issues mentioned above define the gospel itself. The gospel requires that we know the one true God (John 17:3); a false god cannot save us. The gospel requires that we know the true Jesus Christ, for a false Christ cannot save (John 8:24, 2 Corinthians 11:4). And the true gospel alone can bring salvation, which is why we are warned about those who would preach a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, denies every single one of the beliefs I shared with you above. Every one.* It is because of this that I share this literature with you. If you are LDS, I sincerely wish to warn you that you have been misled. If you are not LDS, I wish to inform you of the great differences that exist between Christianity and Mormonism at the most fundamental levels. While we often use the same words, we fill those words with very different meanings.
If you are LDS: I have given you my testimony. Doubtless you may say you have your own. The two testimonies contradict each other, however. What can we do now? The difference between us, my friend, is just this: my testimony does not determine truth. My testimony is a wonderful and precious thing, but it is not how I know the truth. My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: the Bible. No matter how strongly I may “feel” about something, I must submit my feelings to the correction of the Word of God. So while you and I may have testimonies that conflict, I can take my testimony to the Word of God and demonstrate how it is consistent not only with some of the Bible, but with all of the Bible. My beliefs come from the Bible, and I would be glad to demonstrate this to you.
If you are not LDS: Christianity claims to be God’s truth. As such, there is no room, nor reason, for compromising on the essential elements of the faith. Mormonism is a fundamentally different religion, for Mormonism openly proclaims a “plurality of Gods” (see the Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20, 37, Book of Abraham chapters 4-5, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 345ff). Christianity is unalterably monotheistic: we believe in only one true and eternal God. Mormonism presents a different God, a different Christ, and a different gospel. Because we love God, honor His truth, and desire others to know Him, we share this information with you.
(1) Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10, 44:5-8; Psalm 90:2, 96:5; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17. (2) Isa. 40:22, 41:4, 44:24; Jer. 10:10-11; (3) 2 Chron. 6:18; Jer. 23:24; John 4:24. (4) Zech 12:1; Psalm 50:21; Isa 29:16; Hosea 11:9. (5) John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-6; Heb 1:10. (6) John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:1-3. (7) Col. 1:19-20, 2:13-14; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7. (8) John 6:44, 65; Eph. 2:1-5. (9) Eph. 2:8-10. (10) 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I appreciate your devout commitment to what you believe, Chris. It used to deeply offend me to hear the mormon church referred to as a cult, as well. However, a cult defined within the context of Christianity is any religious organization that…
–adds to Scripture (beyond the Bible)
–subtracts from the deity of Christ (believing in many gods ruling over many worlds rather than in the unique deity of Jesus Christ…as man is, Christ once was. as Christ is, man will become.)
–multiplies the ways to get to heaven (ex…faith in Christ plus faith in the church prophets, faith in the one true church, faith in the book of mormon, faith in Joseph Smith, blind faith in modern church leadership…)
–and divides families (polygamy according to Brigham Young)
mormonism on the surface appears harmless… But its beliefs about the deity of Christ are alarming… Was He a created being, brother to Lucifer, or has He always been one of the three divine persons of the Trinity?
Other questions to ponder when determining whether mormonism should be considered a type of Christianity… Why does mormonism refuse to acknowledge the power of the cross, thereby undermining the atoning death of Christ? Do it teach that Gethsemane was the place of atonement rather than Calvary? What about original sin? Was Adam and Eve’s decision in the garden of Eden a sin that brought about the fall of mankind? Or were they bravely choosing knowledge over immortality? And if there was no original sin, why did we need a Savior?
Does mormonism claim to have the unique authority to “seal” families in the temple? Does it teach that only the best mormons will gain entrance in the celestial kingdom, based on works… but that no one will be doomed to an actual hell?
Where in the Bible are these beliefs affirmed?
Rather, Paul says, “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:21-24
Chris, I did not turn away from mormonism to another church. I turned away from a false gospel to the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the object of my passion, my purpose and the source of my abiding peace. And “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” Romans 1:16-17
Focus on the deity of Christ, Chris… Not on your own righteousness nor your ability to defend mormonism. The Church is not the source of your salvation. Christ is…always was and always will be.
posted July 5, 2007 at 2:57 pm
PC @ 2.41
I’ll refer you to Mormon and Angry’s response to Dr Tom at 1 o’clock
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:05 pm
2.54: “I have given you my testimony. Doubtless you may say you have your own”
No, I’m going to say that I could care less about your testimony. You and the condition of your soul have absolutely no bearing whatever on my salvation.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I will bow out of this conversation now due to not wanting to continue down rabbit trails such as “arguing about arguing” and arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I don’t have to “prove Mormons wrong”. The Bible does that. Take the teachings of the Bible and put them side-to-side with Mormon scripture and its plain to see they are not the same. And if they are not the same, I’m going to go with the Word of God.
I pray the real Holy Spirit will remove the veil over the Mormons and bring them into light. I pray that the Mormon heart and mind will be opened to the truth of the Bible and the falseness of LDS teaching.
I desire nothing but that Mormons know the true Gospel and the true Jesus Christ. If they have to be “proved wrong” to find this truth, then so be it.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Wizard of ID: “Thanks, Mormon and Angry. I couldn’t have said it better!
”
You’re welcome, Brother ID! Give me five? *FIVE*
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:08 pm
You say that “traditional Christian orthodoxy” are the only true Christians because they follow the Nicean Creed. Have you ever read it? Do you know anything about it?
It is releigion by comittee. It is the purest example of religion dictated by MEN, not by Heavenly Father, or Jesus Christ.
Have you even READ the bible? How can you believe the concept of the TRINITY, when, during the baptism of Jesus, you hear a voice from the heavens “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”.
Was Jesus a ventrilloquist? Or was there actually another separate, devine being?
When Jesus prayed, WHO DID HE PRAY TO? Himself? No, he prayed to His Father In Heaven. “Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name…”
You say that only those who follow the Nicean creed are Christian. I say, Only those who follow Christ are Christians. I’d rather follow a religion given by God, rather than a creed given by Emperor Constantine, a converted Roman, by comittee.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE
Here is an interesting Youtube clip on the Book of Abraham.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Sorry 3.06. I realize it must be a terrible disappointment to you.
Ooh, Mormon and Angry — I’m being sarcastic! I must be falling under your influence!
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Michael Horn: “Emperor Constantine, a converted Roman, by comittee.”
And it’s questionable whether Constantine was even a Christian himself. It’s pretty well established that his support for christianity was more political than anything else.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:21 pm
This is a completely modalistic interpretation of the trinity. Modalism has been traditionally considered heresy.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm
What if the heretics were right?
Jesus was considered a heretic.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Uhhh…Jesus was the Word of God.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Not in the Pharisees opinion!
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Comparing Mormon Teachings vs. Christian Teachings
On Scripture
Mormonism
Book of Mormon
Pearl of Great Price
Doctrine and Covenants
King James Bible
Christianity
The Bible
On God
Mormonism
Polytheistic (many gods)
One god over earth
Not eternally Divine: He was once a man who became a god
Organized the Universe
Progressed to Godhood and is still progressing
Possesses a Physical Body
Heavenly Mother Exists
Christianity
Monotheistic
Trinitarian
Eternally Divine
Spirit
He does not change
Creator of all
On Jesus Christ
Mormonism
Not eternally divine
Literal son of God
His name is Jehovah
Not virgin born by the Holy Ghost
Elohim’s First born spirit-child
Brother of Lucifer
Polygamist
His death atoned for Adam’s sin
He became a god
Christianity
Virgin born by the Holy Spirit
Eternally Divine
God incarnate
His atonement provides the only way for human salvation
On Salvation
Mormon
Immortality is provided through Christ’s atoning death not eternal salvation
Original Sin is denied
Result of grace coupled with works
Exaltation to godhood
Made possible by Jesus and Joseph Smith
No salvation outside LDS Church
Salvation for the Dead
Christian
Not earned by works
No salvation after death
By grace through faith in Christ alone
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm
PC, did you check out Mormon and Angry’s response to Dr Tom at 1 o’clock?
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm
That list is not correct. Do some research and learn what Mormons really believe. Your ministers are lying to you.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Re: Eph 2: 8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should aboast.
Define Saved. I believe that in this passage, Saved refers to the GIFT of immortality. Mormons do believe in this GIFT. We all will be ressurrected through the GIFT of Jesus’ atonement and subsequent resurrection. However, we also believe in another concept, Eternal Life, which is to return and live with God the Father as Exalted beings. This Eternal Life IS dependant on works.
James 2: 14, 17-18, 20-22, 24-26
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
• • •
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my afaith by my works.
• • •
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
• • •
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:45 pm
The reason Mormons have not been refuting your Bible verses is because they believe wholeheartidly in them. Grace, faith, the Godhead, the virgin birth, the divinity and eternal nature of Jesus Christ, all agree with Mormon belief. It is the non-Mormons who have been lying and lied to about what Mormons believe, and sadly, most of them believe the crap they are fed.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:46 pm
and this matters how?
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Re: I testify to you.
You hold fast to your testimony, as do most Mormons, as do I. Where did your testimony come from? Did it come from man? or did it come from the Holy Ghost? One cannot base thier testimony solely on the Bible. The Bible should not be the basis for a testimony for the simple fact that it can be interpreted SO many ways. That is the exact reason we have so many different “Christian” religions.
“My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: the Bible.”, you say.
I say, “My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: Heavenly Father Himself (via the promptings of the Holy Ghost).”
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:52 pm
That sometimes, people considered heretics are right.
Would you agree with me if I said you’re a heretic?
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Wizard of ID,
I did read Mormon and Angry’s absurd response to you.
posted July 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm
B,
Which part of the list is not correct?
Would you say these statements are true of Mormon teachings:
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil so that you may see.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-347)
“I might with boldness proclaim that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 6:7)
“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! This is the great secret.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345)
“As man is now God once was; as God now is man may become.” (Lorenzo Snow, 5th President of the LDS Church, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105-106)
“The fact that there is no reference to a Mother in Heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a Mother did exist there.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:142)
“When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-Angel, the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51)
“The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.’” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 345-346)
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son has also; but the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:01 pm
A Brief Detour: James 2:20 and Paul’s Teaching on Righteousness
It might be best right here, Steve, to address what seems to be one of the “favorite” passages of Mormon people who attempt to defend the idea that justification is not by faith alone, but by faith and works, that being James 2:17-24. I think it fits well here simply because both Paul and James refer to the same person as their example (Abraham) even to the point of quoting the same passage from the Old Testament (Genesis 15:6). Some have said that James and Paul simply disagreed on this issue and that their teachings are contradictory. But I think that is little more than a cop-out. A close examination of James’ words reveals another story. Here is what he said,
I’ve often commented that if the most “memorized” verse among conservative Christians is John 3:16, then the most “memorized” verse among Latter-day Saints is James 2:20, so often have I heard it quoted by missionaries and others. But does the verse teach that God’s grace is insufficient without man’s works to bring about full and complete justification? What is James talking about here?
As always, let’s examine the context. First, James is not discussing how one is made righteous before God, how one finds forgiveness of sins. The whole book is not written to unbelievers, nor is it its purpose to discuss how unbelievers are made believers. Instead, James’ book is primarily moral and ethical in nature. It is an exhortation to Christian living, directed solely to people who already name the name of Christ. We read in 1:18-21,
James is talking to Christians (1:19) and calling them to a holy life. But in the process he “lets it slip” that he, just like Paul, believes that salvation is the work of God. It is God who “begot us with the word of truth” and it is the word of God that “is able to save your souls.”
This is exactly what Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13,
Part and parcel of this recognition of God’s work of salvation is the idea that when God saves someone, they will be changed and will live a life that will demonstrate that they are truly Christians. This, too, is exactly what Paul taught as well. The famous passage in the second chapter of Ephesians that you have probably heard more than once in this debate is often not quoted completely — you may have read Ephesians 2:8-9, but how often did you hear verse 10 quoted along with it?
We are saved by grace through faith. This salvation, and this faith, is not of ourselves, but is the free and undeserved gift of God. Our salvation is not of works, for if it were, then we would have something about which to boast. But Paul doesn’t stop there. God saves us, but does He leave us just as we were? Does not God have a plan and purpose for our life? Indeed He does, for Paul goes on to assert that we are the creation or workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto (not by) good works. God has before ordained that we should walk in good works, bringing glory to God. That is His purpose for us. Those good works do not bring about our salvation, they flow from our salvation. The salvation comes first — first we are justified. Then we do the good works, for only those who are right with God can even do good works! And this is exactly what James will be arguing for in his book as well.
So we see that James is addressing Christians and exhorting them to good works just as Paul did. Note Paul’s words to Titus:
This is a common theme in all of Paul’s letters. Never will you see the Bible saying “well, since God saved you, you can just go and have a good time.” That kind of thinking is utterly foreign to the Christian, and is directly contradictory to the Word of God. In fact, many LDS people have made that very accusation against the gospel of grace, and I have often replied, “Do you know you just quoted a passage from the Bible?” They are normally taken aback by this, so I go on to quote the passage to them:
A person who has died with Christ Jesus (Galatians 2:20) is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). We have died to sin, and therefore cannot continue to live under its dominion. The desire of our heart is not to bring grief to God’s heart, but to bring glory to His name. So we see that Paul and James are teaching the exact same thing. No contradiction here.
Next, we see that James does not believe that the law can bring a man into salvationin fact, he is again in complete agreement with Paul. He writes,
James asserts that it is not enough to simply keep most of the law, or to do “all you can” (2 Nephi 25:23). He says that nothing but perfection would do and, since none of us keep the law perfectly, obviously that is not the way of justification, just as Paul taught (Romans 3:20).
And so we come to the second half of chapter 2, and the discussion by James of the relationship of faith and works. In verse 14 he tells us what kind of “faith” he is discussing:
Now please note that the faith James is talking about is a faith that does not produce works. It is a faith that produces no fruit, shows no changed life. Is this the faith that Paul talks about in Romans, a faith that is in Christ Jesus and is the supernatural gift of God? Certainly not! So we see that James is talking about a “head faith,” a faith that is nothing more than an intellectual acknowledgment of certain facts, not a true heart-changing, saving faith that is the work of the Spirit of God. Since Paul asserts that justification is based solely on true, saving faith, and himself denies that this kind of faith can exist without the resultant change in a person’s life, then James’ whole discussion here is directed not against Paul’s teaching but against a completely different kind of belief — a belief that is still around to this day. James will attack the idea that a person can at one point in time simply acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and then go on to live a life of sin and debauchery, even to the point of denying the Lord (yes, believe it or not, some people actually teach that!), and yet still be saved! James denies that this is saving faith and Paul denies this as well! But the important thing to grasp is that James is discussing a totally different concept than that we have seen in Paul. Let’s go on and see how this is borne out by the text.
In verse 17 James asserts that a faith that does not result in works is “dead, being alone.” Dead faith cannot save anyone. Mere intellectual assent to certain facts is not saving faith, and is surely not the work of the Spirit of God. He goes on to show the foolishness of this kind of “head faith” in verse 18, and in doing so gives us another vitally important aspect of his discussion in this chapter. James speaks of “showing” our faith, proving our faith before men. How can one show one’s faith to other men? You certainly can’t do it without works. Faith is a matter of the heart, so it cannot be seen by men other than in the effects it has upon the manner of life of the person. Why is this so important? Because when James will talk about Abraham being “justified” by his works, he does so in the context of demonstrating his faith before other men, not before God! The “justification” of which James speaks, then, is in a completely different context than Paul’s discussion in Romans or Galatians. Paul says that no man shall be justified in the sight of God by works; James says that the only way a man can be justified in the sight of men is by works! Again, we see that the topics under discussion differ from Paul and James, and that in reality they are in perfect harmony with one another.
And so James asserts that while the demons “believe” and tremble, this does them no good, for the “faith” that is theirs is hardly the faith that is the work of the Spirit, but is just a simple recognition of the fact of God’s existence. This kind of faith is of no use to them. As a result, faith without works is dead, and to that I say a hearty “amen” and say, “Paul taught the same thing in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and all his other letters.” But we need to recognize that James is not saying that true, saving faith, which always results in good works and is never “alone,” is insufficient to save. Sadly, that is what most LDS try to say James is teaching, but he is not.
James then gives us an example: Abraham. He asks if Abraham was not justified by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar. Well, was he? We must remember, Steve, that the readers of James’ letter would know the Old Testament story of Abraham by heart. How would they have understood his words? We know that Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” in Genesis 15:6. This was at least twenty years before the offering of Isaac of which James speaks (Genesis 22:1-l4). So James knew, as did his readers, that Abraham’s faith had brought him righteousness before this act of obedience on his part two decades later. But as we have already seen, James is not talking about how one becomes righteous in God’s sight, but how one demonstrates one’s faith. So Abraham’s act of obedience did not initially make him righteous but instead showed the reality of his faith in God. His works “perfected” his faith, showed his faith, and most importantly, sprung from his faith. In each instance faith is prior to, and foundational to, the works. James is saying what Paul said in different words in Romans chapter 12 and in Ephesians 2:10. When he says that a man is “justified” by works and not by faith only, the preceding discussion prohibits us from taking this to be a denial of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone. Rather, he is speaking of a different sense of justification (before men, not before God) and is still keeping before us the truth that real, saving faith will not be without works.
James’ next example bears this out (James 2:25), for when he speaks of Rahab being “justified” by her works, we know that the reason Rahab did what she did was because of her faith. She told the spies in Joshua 2:9-11 that she knew of the true God Jehovah, and in fact said, “for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.” Since she really believed that, she acted on her faith and hid the servants of Jehovah. Her actions showed the reality of her faith.
So we see that James and Paul are not contradicting each other. When the context of James and his whole teaching is taken into consideration, we see that he is emphasizing the importance of the demonstration of our faith by our works. He is not teaching us that our works bring about our justification before God, nor does he deny the fact that faith is foundational to, and gives rise to, real works of righteousness. So we see that Paul’s doctrine of justification is not contradicted by James.
—Mormons should understand verses before they believe in them.
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:06 pm
You have no other evidence for this other than your “feeling” that the Holy Ghost testifies this to you.
If we all rely on our feelings then I could just say I feel like the Holy ghost testifies that my dog is Jesus Christ.
I rely on the Word of God. You rely on your feeling that the Holy Ghost testifies to you. I’d rather rely on the Bible than just a feeling.
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Leroy Morte, Like I posted on the other side, I have not been arguing about the “rightness” of Christianity or the “wrongness” of Mormonism. I have been discussing the meaning of Christianity and Mormonism, and fighting against the destruction of meaning.
All the same, I think your implication that these things don’t matter is very misguided.
Posted by: Anon | July 5, 2007 3:57 AM”
Misguided in what way? Because I think our leaders should be chosen for their intelligence and not their belief in a deity? Misguided because I don’t take you or anyone else on this threads word for the existence of, interpretation of, or validity of a deity? The “Rightness of Christianity” or the “Wrongness of Mormonism” is really moot in my opinion. It’s like 2 children trying to convince me their imaginary friend is “Cooler” than the others. It still doesn’t prove either one is anything other than a figment of their imagination. And endlessly arguing over it doesn’t get anyone anwhere. People have been arguing, killing, ostracizing each other, depriving each other of liberty and property, and innumerabe other things in the name of gods and religion for all of recorded history. Exactly what has it produced other than more arguments? Is it really all that misguided of me to think that maybe religion in general hasn’t worked so well, and maybe we need something else? Maybe all of the energy used on these arguments should be put toward making the world a better place, instead of worrying about whose imaginary friend is bigger.
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:25 pm
4.01 Who exactly do you think cares enough about your opinion to read all that????
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I say, “My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: Heavenly Father Himself (via the promptings of the Holy Ghost).”
You have no other evidence for this other than your “feeling” that the Holy Ghost testifies this to you.
If we all rely on our feelings then I could just say I feel like the Holy ghost testifies that my dog is Jesus Christ.
I rely on the Word of God. You rely on your feeling that the Holy Ghost testifies to you. I’d rather rely on the Bible than just a feeling.
I think that is a common misconception. Personal revelation from the Holy Ghost is more than a feeling. It is very hard to describe if you have not felt it.
Also, we rely on the “fruits” of those revelations to know thier truths as well.
How do you know the Word of God (the Bible) to be true? Did you know live in those times? Did you know Jesus Christ? I think not. You MUST rely on faith.
Therefore, if you must rely on faith, what is faith? By definition it is not seen. Faith is believing in things which are not seen, which are true.
How does your faith manifiest itself if not by the power of the Holy Ghost. “by the power of the Holy Ghost you shall KNOW the truth of all things”
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Leroy Morte,
More people have killed in the name of atheism than in the name of religion. i.e. Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist Korea, Communist Vietnam, etc… So, should we deduce from that that atheism is worse than theism or just that killing is wrong no matter your theology?
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Sorry about 4:25, I put quote tags around the quoted stuff.. but apparently it was wrong.
posted July 5, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hey B…those comments are correct. Tell me how they are wrong?
posted July 5, 2007 at 5:35 pm
PC @ 3.52: “I did read Mormon and Angry’s absurd response to you.”
Sorry if it wasn’t to your taste. But you see, we have a sense of humor. I’ll try not to let it show so much.
posted July 5, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Stuart, those comments are wrong because you have taken individual quotes out of context. For example, the King Follette discource has often been used to show that God was not God, but in that very same speech, Joseph Smith equates the eternities with a ring and that a ring has no beginning and no end, but if you cut a ring, then it has a beginning and an end, but you cannot have it both ways. In other words, because God has no end, He also has no beginning. You choose to cut-and-paste from an anti-Mormon source without understanding the context or meaning behind Smith’s words. That is why what was posted is false. Same with the virgin birth (which Mormons believe), same with Grace of Christ, same with all of these points you are trying to used to persuade people from learning.
posted July 5, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Dr Mohler does not cite any evidence that Mormons are not Christian. He’s a lot of hot air.
I think Bill Kirpatrick said it best: This great nation was founded by Christians evading persecution by other Christians. People like Dr Mohler — a Southern Baptist, a denomination that did not exist until the 1750s — are more than happy to now denounce Mormons as “not Christian” based on glittering generalities.
Mormons tout Jesus all over the place. I’m no theologian, but I’d say that makes them Christian. Just like the Southern Baptists and all the other Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxers (ie non-Catholic Christians) out there.
Other other hand, many who claim to be Christian by virtue of their faith are no such thing in practice: Those who spread division & intolerance; those who hoard wealth; those who scorn the poor, the sick and the weak; those who pray publicly; those of you support needless war & torture; these people disregard the words and acts of Jesus Christ, and are therefore, in fact, un-Christian.
May these people look into their own hearts, feel shame, and repent.
posted July 5, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I know you are just yanking chains, but this is an opportunity for understanding.
Bizarre? You should look at what those Christians get up to! You know they actually practice cannibalism? Every Sunday, they go through this ritual where they eat human flesh and drink human blood!
Well, I grant you that the Eucharist is a jolting thing. It is so jolting that when Jesus Christ taught that it was necessary (John 6), many of his disciples left him. Yes, it is a profoundly bewildering thing, but the Apostles accepted the teaching, and through the Eucharist, it is also a profoundly Holy and Glorious thing! I credit the Eucharist for the vast majority of the depth of my Spiritual life and my love for God.
But, it isn’t cannibalism. Yes, we believe its substance is the real flesh, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but it is in the form of bread and wine. Cannibalism is an act related to eating human flesh in the form of meat.
Also, you should probably know that it is mostly just the Orthodox Church and a very few Protestant churches who believes it is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. To most of the Protestants it is only symbolic.
posted July 5, 2007 at 9:25 pm
And by “the Orthodox Church,” I mean all of Orthodoxy, including Catholicism.
posted July 5, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Anon, reading your other posts, I actually believe you.
I’m glad. I’m working very hard to be understood. I’m sure I can be an unreasonable jerk, but I’m trying very hard to avoid that, as well.
I apologize if I didn’t take you seriously at first and painted you along with the other lunatics.
No worries. They probably are sincere and don’t mean you any harm, but it has to be annoying as blazes when the topic is one of meaning, but they keep interjecting: “By the way, you are going to hell.” And I don’t think they realize the affront to God when they say this, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are trodding on forbidden (and excessively uncharitable) ground. Still–I think they deserve pity more than anything. (Actually, I think we all deserve a little pity.)
I promise to be more respectful (to you, at least) from now on.
Don’t raise the bar too high. We may want to brawl about something else at another time.
posted July 5, 2007 at 9:57 pm
However, a cult defined within the context of Christianity is any religious organization that…
I really don’t think this “cult” stuff is productive, Jessica. “Cult” has many sinister meanings these days, and it is unfair to pin all those connotations on Mormonism. Even if we were in a venue where it wouldn’t be so inflammatory, I would insist on very solid rigor in understanding the technical term as it was being used. I don’t think you’ve done that. Either way, it’s not charitable to make issue of it, when it does not help us with the topic at hand.
Besides that–after looking at your criteria, I realized there were several ways I could interpret and apply them. One way that I noticed would make *all* Christian denominations cults. (And, by the way, in some contexts, “cult” actually is a positive word.)
posted July 5, 2007 at 10:20 pm
It is releigion by comittee. It is the purest example of religion dictated by MEN, not by Heavenly Father, or Jesus Christ.
No. The creeds were articulations of the doctrines contained in the Deposit of the Faith given directly to the Apostles and the Church by Jesus Christ. The Bishops of the Councils, with the protection of the Holy Spirit–the Paraclete that was promised to them by Jesus Himself, and witnessed at Pentacost in the miraculous signs of flame and language, worked through the language and monitored each other to make sure it was accurate and faithful to the doctrine that had been known since it was handed to the Apostles. That is not dictation. That is preservation.
Have you even READ the bible? How can you believe the concept of the TRINITY, when, during the baptism of Jesus, you hear a voice from the heavens “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”.
That is part of the great mystery of the Trinity. Jesus handed us these truths, and as fantastic as they seem, we believe them because we love Jesus and we trust Him.
Was Jesus a ventrilloquist? Or was there actually another separate, devine being?
This is a materialist argument. I expect materialist arguments from atheists. What is *real* goes far beyond the physical world.
When Jesus prayed, WHO DID HE PRAY TO? Himself? No, he prayed to His Father In Heaven. “Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name…”
Yes. You are still just articulating more of the mystery. They are One God in Three Persons. Christ prayed to the Father while being One God with Him. He was also probably trying to teach us things, like how to be unified to Him and to the Father.
You say that only those who follow the Nicean creed are Christian. I say, Only those who follow Christ are Christians.
Well…for the billionth time, you cannot “say” what Christians are. Christianity has a distinct nature with essential attributes. If you reject the essential attributes, you reject Christianity. If you still insist that you are Christian, you do violence to meaning and ultimately do harm to Mormonism.
I’d rather follow a religion given by God, rather than a creed given by Emperor Constantine, a converted Roman, by comittee.
Guys–please do your homework. The doctrines in the Creed are well known and understood by the Early Church Fathers who go back to the time of the Apostles. Constantine did not give them anything. They already had it. I strenuously encourage you to study the early Church Fathers. It will change your perspective of the history of Christianity immensely. And there’s lots to read! Many of these are men who worked directly with the Apostles.
posted July 5, 2007 at 10:52 pm
—Mormons should understand verses before they believe in them.
You mean understand *your* interpretation of them? By what authority? If they find another reasonable way to interpret the words, why should they find yours valid? What authority makes your interpretation trump theirs?
*Meaning* always precedes text. I have been fighting for the cause of meaning, and the fact that Christianity has meaning inasmuch it has a common and essential attribute of the Doctrine of the Trinity. But a reasonable man can interpret Scripture without the previous knowledge of the Trinity, and they can reasonably interpret it in a way that excludes the Trinity. *Your* interpretations include the Trinity because the doctrine is solidly embedded in Christian Holy Tradition. Without having the benefit of that foreknowledge, there is no telling what your interpretation would have been.
Jesus provided that authority with the Majesterium of the Catholic Church and Holy Tradition. But the Catholic focus is meaning, and we can use Scripture to teach that meaning, but the words alone are not proof of anything. And if Mormons don’t recognize Catholic authority, it makes no sense to push off Catholic interpretation onto them.
Mormons bring a different set of assumptions to the table. You cannot refute them by text alone.
Oh! And while we’re at it, how about James 2:24-26*:
“Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving messengers, and sending them out another way? For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”
*This is the only place in Scripture where you find the words “faith alone” (“faith only” in this translation) and as you can read, it *refutes* the idea of faith alone.
posted July 5, 2007 at 10:58 pm
And it’s questionable whether Constantine was even a Christian himself. It’s pretty well established that his support for christianity was more political than anything else.
I don’t think that is true, and I don’t think it is fair to Constantine. Constantine struggled deeply with reconciling his actions with Christianity. He was so unsure of it, that he didn’t want to profane Christianity by being Baptised while he was warring so much. For this reason, he had a priest with him always, so that if he were to reach the threshold of death, the priest could Baptise him a Christian before he died.
Whatever else you say about it–these are not the actions of a man who isn’t *very* serious about Christianity.
posted July 5, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Misguided in what way? Because I think our leaders should be chosen for their intelligence and not their belief in a deity?
I think it is incomplete and oversimplified. But that’s a long discussion, so I’d rather let it go.
And endlessly arguing over it doesn’t get anyone anwhere.
That may be true in a practical sense sometimes. But in a strict sense, you can only say that if you think *meaning* is irrelevant. Is that what you think? If meaning is irrelevant, then any level of intelligence is …well…meaningless.
People have been arguing, killing, ostracizing each other, depriving each other of liberty and property, and innumerabe other things in the name of gods and religion for all of recorded history.
That is an excessively simple-minded and incomplete way of looking at it. Religion is rarely the only reason or even the main reason for violence. And as another poster above mentioned, atheist entities (and I would add secular humanism) are responsible for far more death than religion. Stalin alone settles that bet.
Exactly what has it produced other than more arguments?
Several things, actually. It irons things out and provides some clarity to some people some of the time. That is, in fact, productive, even if you choose to brush them off simply because some other people are still battling it out.
It has also produced respect among men. “Angry and Mormon” and I have found a mutual respect for each other in the heat of our battles. That’s a good thing.
Developing ways of thinking is another thing that we accomplish.
Discrediting and discarding error is another thing that we accomplish–even if some hard cases still cling to them.
There are many things that we accomplish as men with minds. But I have to ask: If you think we accomplish nothing with these arguments–why on earth are you joining it? Your participation comes across as exceptionally self-contradictory and confused to me.
Is it really all that misguided of me to think that maybe religion in general hasn’t worked so well, and maybe we need something else?
You are ignoring all the good that religion has done for the world. The charity it has brought. The evil it has stopped. (Sometimes violence is necessary in the face of evil.) The education it has encouraged. A good study of religion will show that the world is a far better place because of it. But, if it satisfies you to only sift through the excrement and blood for a one-sided judgment, suit yourself.
Maybe all of the energy used on these arguments should be put toward making the world a better place, instead of worrying about whose imaginary friend is bigger.
I guess if you believe that the propagation of error is a healthy thing, this may be a foolish game. And there are almost certainly better things to do. But that still makes me ask: Why are *you* here?
posted July 5, 2007 at 11:35 pm
“Leroy Morte,
More people have killed in the name of atheism than in the name of religion. i.e. Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist Korea, Communist Vietnam, etc… So, should we deduce from that that atheism is worse than theism or just that killing is wrong no matter your theology?”
Do you really think the cult of personality that developed around the charismatic leaders of those communist nations isn’t akin to a religious movement with a deified prophet, scriptures, commandments, and beliefs? But even without that, how many millions of native americans, pagan europeans, black africans, and muslim infidels during the crusades do you think were slaughtered, deprived of their property and rights, and enslaved by christian europeans? How many have been killed by muslim jihadists over the last 1500 yrs? How many ritual human sacrifices performed by Aztec, Mayan and other native americans practicing their religion? How many people presecuted by pagan Rome? How many settlements did Jehovah command his Isrealites to slaughter to the last man, woman, child, and animal in their conquest of the Holy Land? How many Jews killed in europes pogroms, both pre 1930 and Nazi Germany? How many died in the Hundred years war in Europe, between Protestants and Catholic? How many Mormons killed on their way to Utah? How many did they kill when they got there? How many Irish and British over the Northern Ireland situation?
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:19 am
But even without that, how many millions of native americans, pagan europeans, black africans, and muslim infidels during the crusades do you think were slaughtered, deprived of their property and rights, and enslaved by christian europeans?
Okay, I have to laugh, because your ignorance is spread out in front of everybody.
The Crusades have nothing to do with Native Americans, pagan Europeans, or Black Africans. The Crusades were meant to push back the Muslims who had been continuously and brutally conquering the Christian world with their ruthless swords. They suppressed the Christians they conquered in very brutal ways. The eastern Christians begged for help from the western Christians. If it weren’t for the Crusades–in spite of their falure in some ways–you would probably be speaking Turkish or Arabic and enjoying the daily abuse of your woman. The Muslim world was determined to conquer and enslave the Christian world. (Islam means “Peace”–The “Peace” you get when everyone is forcibly converted to Islam or else enslaved.)
Remember Lepanto!
And–by the way–Muslims call *us* infidels.
And if you think your mental regurgitation of crap is a responsible and complete representation of history, you simply are not worth paying attention to.
And I still haven’t gotten an answer to my question. If, as you insist, this exercise is futile and a waste of good time–WHY ARE YOU HERE?
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:23 am
Do you really think the cult of personality that developed around the charismatic leaders of those communist nations isn’t akin to a religious movement with a deified prophet, scriptures, commandments, and beliefs?
And, by the way, as the rest of you can see above, this guy conveniently cries foul and informs us that things are not as simple as all that, while simultaniously expecting us to swallow his simple-minded garbage when it applies to us. One more example of his self-contradictory and confused mind.
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:30 am
RE: Scott in Pac NW
1. The Southern Baptist Conference was not founded until 1845 in Augusta, Ga.
2. As with every Christian denomination; the Southern Baptists have distinctives on non-essential issues which make them what they are. Yet from their very beginning they have well stood within the ranks of orthodox Christians who can trace their spiritual lineage back to the New Testament Church Christ founded. The same cannot be said of the “Latter day Saints”.
3. The Southern Baptists have a long history of cooperation with Christians of varied denominational backgrounds. This is made possible by the fact that while we may disagree on non-essential issues such as Church polity; we none-the-less are in one accord concerning the essentials of “…the faith once delivered to the Saints”.
Not so with the Mormons; they have a different Christ, a different gospel, and a different spirit.(2 Co 11:4) These are much more than just “glittering generalities” as you call them.
4. Over-generalizations and misconstruing of the facts as you have done have historically caused more hate, intolerance, and division than any straight-forward presentation of the Gospel. And unless one is utterly devoid of reason, you sooner or later will realize that TRUTH always divides from ERROR, and LIARS have very little tolerance for the truth.
It readily becomes apparent that you too have a different Jesus from the one who historically exists in the New Testament. The one I know was no “pacifist” concerning spiritual truth, and forever corrects any attempt to mis-characterize himself otherwise when he stated.. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
(Mat 10:34)
We are in a war for truth Scott, and like it or not, regardless of which side you choose… you’re in it.
CrossWise
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:40 am
Apologies for the duplicate post. It seems the beliefnet server was having problems.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:13 am
I once encountered an elderly fellow in Taipei, Taiwan — he asked this question of me (an ordained ministered of the Lord Jesus Christ):
“How can you claim that ‘God so loved the world’ when you deny everlasting life to those who fail to ‘believeth in Him’”.
He really thought it was a telling point that there seemed to be a contradiction between universal love and conditional salvation!!
God really does love all of us perfectly, and no matter when or where we may have been born, He will grant us a full and fair opportunity to earn salvation as defined by the Lord in John 3:15.
Not matter how much we do, it is ultimately grace that saves — I thank God that He includes all.
Some may doubt God’s omnipotence, thinking that grace will not cover those who (as Mormons) accept Jesus as their personal Savior, the promised Messiah, and Lord.
I’m thankful to trust that He is not so limited.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:38 am
The following statement was made earlier by a critic of My Church:
“And so James asserts that while the demons “believe” and tremble, this does them no good, for the “faith” that is theirs is hardly the faith that is the work of the Spirit, but is just a simple recognition of the fact of God’s existence. This kind of faith is of no use to them. As a result, faith without works is dead, and to that I say a hearty “amen” and say, “Paul taught the same thing in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and all his other letters.” But we need to recognize that James is not saying that true, saving faith, which always results in good works and is never “alone,” is insufficient to save. Sadly, that is what most LDS try to say James is teaching, but he is not.”
This is an absolute misstatement of LDS Doctrine. You will find nowhere, either in the Bible or in any LDS Scripture, the assertion that anyone is saved by works, exclusive of or outside Faith in Jesus Christ. The first principle of the Gospel, listed in the LDS “Articles of Faith” is “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”.
Without Him any salvation in any form is impossible. Yet the Bible is replete with commandments given by Jesus himself, and we are specifically told how important these commandments are in the New Testament:
“I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12)
“If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (John 14:15) “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” (John 14:21) “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:23-24)
1″I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. (John 15:1-4)
5″I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15:5-8)
As a Mormon these verses summarize what I believe. If I have no Faith in Christ I am not a branch of the vine. But If I am a branch of the vine I will:
1) Love God
2) Do as Jesus Does
3) keep Jesus Commandments
4) bear much Fruit
The strength to do the works of Faith comes from God the Father, by Faith in Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Please do not tell me what I believe. I know what I believe.
posted July 6, 2007 at 9:31 am
So we should go with 2 verses instead of the entire book of Romans? This is what happens when you rip Bible verses out of context both within their chapters and books and within the Bible as a whole.
If a human wrote a book and something in one chapter contradicted something in a another chapter then it would be understandable. However, God is not human and he is not stupid. God can handle putting together the Bible and not making mistakes or contradicting himself all over it.
Theology is not taking 1 or 2 verses that seem to say what you want them to and then proudly proclaiming “see! i told you so!”. Theology is how this verse relates to that verse, how this chapter relates to that chapter, how this book relates to that book, and how these books relate to the Bible as a whole.
The whole of the Bible supports “saved by Grace ALONE”, NOT the Mormon “saved by Grace, after all we can do.
The evidence is there. Don’t take it up with me. I didn’t say it. Talk to God.
James is not at odds with Paul. “They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel.” [Alexander Ross, "The Epistle of James and John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 53.] In 1:17-18, James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God. Now he is stressing the importance of faith’s fruit—the righteous behavior that genuine faith always produces. Paul, too, saw righteous works as the necessary proof of faith.
Those who imagine a discrepancy between James and Paul rarely observe that it was Paul who wrote, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (Rom. 6:15); and “Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (v. 18). Thus Paul condemns the same error James is exposing here. Paul never advocated any concept of dormant faith.
When Paul writes, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight,” (Rom. 3:20),
posted July 6, 2007 at 9:54 am
Achieving a Celestial Marriage
A celestial marriage, i.e., one wherein the couple is sealed in the Mormon Temple, is the key to exaltation according to another publication produced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Achieving a Celestial Marriage is another student manual, copyrighted 1992 by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What it says about God is especially relevant, since it does so in the context of guiding couples into the very relationship that makes exaltation to godhood possible! On pages 129-132 we encounter the plain and clear words of this official publication regarding the means by which men are exalted to the status of a God. As normal, the source begins with the idea of man’s capacity for progress and exaltation, and from this, moves to the idea that God Himself went through a similar process.
The reader has surely noted the repeated emphasis, throughout the literature surveyed so far, on the absolute necessity of faithfulness to divine laws and ordinances if one is to gain exaltation. Here these concepts are said to be definitional of the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. We cannot emphasize too strongly that in Mormonism this idea of advancement to godhood is the gospel of the Mormon Church! If we fail to understand this, we risk seeing this as a mere side-issue, rather than the defining concept that it is. The necessity of obedience to such laws comes out in the next section as well:
One of the concepts that is especially troubling to the Christian reviewer of these beliefs is the idea that part and parcel of the idea of exaltation and the very power of God is the idea of procreation. It is not as if there is something wrong with human sexuality: but the projection of creaturely means of propagation onto the Creator Himself is what causes the orthodox Christian to read the following words with amazement:
When making the decision concerning the magnitude of difference between the LDS view of God, and the historic Christian view, the idea that God has a continuation of the seeds forever and ever, and that this is made a part of His deity, should be kept in mind.
This section is followed by one titled God was once a mortal man, and again, we find the LDS Church falling back, not upon her Scriptures to teach her people, but the King Follett Funeral Discourse. Subtitles include “He Lived on an Earth Like Our Own” and “He Experienced Conditions Similar to Our Own and Advanced Step by Step.” This is followed by another section, “God is Now an Exalted Man with Powers of Eternal Increase,” with a subtitle, “Our Father in Heaven Lives in an Exalted Marriage Relationship.” Under this section Melvin J. Ballard is quoted:
The repetition of the same theme concerning the heavenly Mother should also play a large role in comparing LDS teaching to historic Christian theology. The literal parent-child relationship of God and humans is then emphasized with subtitles including “We Are Literal Children of God” and “We Lived with our Heavenly Parents Prior to Coming to Earth.”
———-
[1]Doctrines of the Gospel, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986), pp. 7-8.
[2] The person familiar with LDS theology will find it interesting that in the intervening material there is a citation of Bruce R. McConkie’s Fireside talk at BYU titled, Our Relationship with the Lord. This talk is famous, for in it McConkie counseled against seeking a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. The impossible position the LDS are placed in by their theology of God is well illustrated in McConkie’s attempts to explain just who it is that Mormons worship, and how Jesus is not to be worshipped as the Father is. This leads to a direct violation of the commandment to worship Jehovah alone.
—from http://www.aomin.org
I also find it funny that the Mormons in this discussion are constantly screaming “don’t tell me what I believe”. I’m not telling you what you believe, I wouldn’t do that. I’m telling you what the LDS Church believes and I’m getting that information from LDS Church official publications. If you believe something different than the LDS Church, that has nothing to do with me.
posted July 6, 2007 at 9:58 am
POC777, your comments at 2:34AM, you responded to things that did not get properly posted, so they don’t follow with my discussion. (Not your fault.) Please see the correction I made and respond according to that.
**I will add “My response” to not confuse others.
I will, however, respond to this comment of yours:
*Not if they continue to deny what God has instructed the Christian in the Bible.
Without any authority, there are many, many possible interpretations that can be made of the Bible by reasonable men.
My response:
Every interpretation has to come directly from the Holy Spirit–if not, it is man’s interpretation and not to be heeded. I don’t accept man’s interpretations from the Bible, but from the Holy Spirit. He is the One who interpretates the Bible and not from man’s intellectual. I will choose any day, a man who is Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, than a man who is a scholor, and yet, doesn’t have the Holy Spirit living in him.
Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don’t realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations.
My response:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth–they don’t follow man. If Christians follow man–then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but futher. Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn’t lie?
For example, the Trinitarian doctrine is *essential* to Christianity. A Christian who reads the Bible, interprets it according to the traditional knowledge they already have regarding the Trinity. But a person without that foreknowledge can reasonably interpret it to have meaning that is not inclusive of the Trinity.
My response:
Right, but every Christian must be like a Berean and search the Scriptures(the Bible) if what people teach is true. If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately. The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian–it is not a requirement. It is good to learn about the Trinity–to not get confused on which one is God–The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three in one God, yet function differently. A person who does not know or understand about the Trinity, might think there are three Gods and not one God or more gods.
The Deity of Jesus Christ–every Christian must know to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ, as God coming in the flesh, to this world to save mankind from their sin-debt. If a new Christian, doesn’t know these doctrines and then graduates from his or her body, that Christian is going to Heaven. I will always point to the robber next to Jesus on the cross, who repented of his sins and confessed “LORD”–who did not get baptized or even learned one doctrine–he went to Heaven on that day to be with Jesus Christ.
So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
My response:
Almost every post in this debate, cleary shows that Mormonism is not Christian. For the reason, that the BOM is not “another testament of Jesus Christ” because there are only two testaments: Old Testament and New Testament, which come from the Bible–Mormon doctrine… opposes, denies and contradicts on what God has already said in the Bible.
Mr. Smith’s first vision on 1820, was not from God.
From John Ankerberg: “The issue of Mormons revelations is finally reduced to one simple test. If Joseph Smith’s revelations deny, contradict and oppose the Bible, then whatever their source, they cannot possibly have orginated in God. And if they did not originate in God, they have no divine authority and should not be heeded.”
We have witnesses that Mormonism is not Christian–the evidence are so overwhelming, that no Christian or Mormon could deny.
Dr. Anthony Hoekema states Mormonism–is really anti-Christian. He declares in his book “The Four Major Cults:
“We must at this point assert, in the strongest possible terms, that Mormonism does not deserve to be called a Christian religion. It is basically anti-Christian and anti-biblical”
Gorden Fraser, the author of four books on Mormonism, explains:
“We object to Mormon missionaries posing as Christians, and our objections are based on the differences between what they are taught by the [Mormon] General Authorities and what the Bible teaches”
Dr. Walter Martin correctly asserted:
“In no uncertain terms, the Bible condemns the teachings of the Mormon Church”
Former Mormons and experts on Mormonsim Jerald and Sandra Tanner, also correctly affirm:
“The Mormon Church is certainly not built on the teachings of the Bible”
Posted by: Anon | July 5, 2007 3:07 AM
posted July 6, 2007 at 10:09 am
Why does every Mormon have to go through the process of a ceremonial eternal marriage, for their salavtion and to get to Heaven, if God has provided the way: He sent His begotten Son, to die for their sin-debt in full–for their salvation–to receive the free gift of eternal life–and when death comes will to go to Heaven?
posted July 6, 2007 at 11:15 am
My response:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth–they don’t follow man. If Christians follow man–then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but further. Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn’t lie?
*Forgive me, I did a typo I meant to write “God is good!” not the opposite.
posted July 6, 2007 at 12:18 pm
So we should go with 2 verses instead of the entire book of Romans? This is what happens when you rip Bible verses out of context both within their chapters and books and within the Bible as a whole.
And guys like you are what happens when you reject these words and contort them to mean what you want. (More on this below.)
If a human wrote a book and something in one chapter contradicted something in another chapter then it would be understandable. However, God is not human and he is not stupid. God can handle putting together the Bible and not making mistakes or contradicting himself all over it.
I am not saying that there is any contradiction in the intended meaning of the inspired authors of the Bible. I am saying that those words contradict *your* interpretation. I was completely aware that you would find another way to interpret them. But it certainly isn’t readily apparent that they should not be interpreted to contradict your view. In fact, I would go so far as to say the *most likely* interpretation of a reasonable human being would be to contradict your view.
The whole of the Bible supports “saved by Grace ALONE”, NOT the Mormon “saved by Grace, after all we can do.
You are swapping words and playing with them now. The discussion was in regard to “faith alone,” not “Grace ALONE.” I would agree that we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. However, according to your doctrine, faith is a contingency to that grace. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that faith is the *only* contingency. In fact, it specifically says **faith without works is dead**. This would mean that without works, you have not fulfilled your contingency–because its *dead*. It would mean that works are also a contingency for that grace.
Now, I believe it’s a bit more mysterious than that, but what is clear to me is that faith and works are two sides of the same coin that avails us to the grace that saves us.
Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say that you will be saved by faith alone. It says in places that you are justified by faith, but it never says *alone*. There are other verses, however (and not just the one above), that support the need for works for justification. It takes a certain linguistic acrobatics to discard them.
So the only way you can say with any confidence that the Bible supports the idea of justification by “faith alone,” is by bringing in previous *non-Biblical* knowledge. The reason I am confident in the Catholic interpretation is that it does in fact bring knowledge of Holy Tradition and the Deposit of Faith handed to us by Jesus Christ. So I’m good. But you (I assume) *reject* all foreknowledge that is extra-biblical. You are in a bit of a quandary, because you can do whatever acrobatics you want to support your interpretation, but in the end, it’s just one man’s interpretation that goes against the most straight-forward interpretation of James 2:24-26.
The evidence is there. Don’t take it up with me. I didn’t say it. Talk to God.
No. It’s not. You have satisfied yourself with a way to interpret that tells you what you want. But that isn’t reading evidence from the Bible. That is reading evidence *into* it.
James is not at odds with Paul.
I agree. He’s at odds with you.
“They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel.” [Alexander Ross, "The Epistle of James and John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 53.] In 1:17-18, James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God. Now he is stressing the importance of faith’s fruit—the righteous behavior that genuine faith always produces. Paul, too, saw righteous works as the necessary proof of faith.
Notice that they do not say “faith alone.” They are teaching about the importance of faith, but it is not exclusionary. It’s as if you read an essay on the importance of wheels to the bicycle, and based upon that information, you reject the need for the frame. The wheels being important and essential do not negate the critical need for the frame.
I repeat: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you are saved by faith alone. That is an **innovation** of the Reformationists.
Those who imagine a discrepancy between James and Paul rarely observe that it was Paul who wrote, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (Rom. 6:15); and “Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (v. 18). Thus Paul condemns the same error James is exposing here. Paul never advocated any concept of dormant faith.
There are dozens of reasonable interpretations of those things. (And weren’t you the one complaining about people “ripping” lines out of context?) I actually interpreted that first line of Paul’s as saying: “Being in grace does not rid you of the obligation not to sin.”
When Paul writes, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight,” (Rom. 3:20),
This has to do with circumcision, and relates to the Judaic law. There is a grand canyon’s worth of room for interpretation here. But the easiest way to make my point is to point out that Paul says further down in Romans 3:25-26 “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins, Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ.”
We know from James that faith without works is dead, so we know that the faith to which the verse refers is a faith achieved *with works*. We also *don’t see* anything like “faith and nothing else” in that chapter.
Additionally, in Romans 3:31, Paul concludes the chapter by saying: “Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.”
No matter how you twist the words, they are still consistent with the Orthodox understanding of faith and works. Your innovations *rely* upon the preconceptions you bring to the interpretation. And, your interpretations go against the most straight forward reading of James 2:24-26 and Romans 3:31. And *nowhere* in the Bible does it say you are saved by faith alone.
You are in a very, very wobbly situation to be telling the Mormons, “—Mormons should understand verses before they believe in them.”
Paul insists that no man can ever win justification through his own efforts … James demands that a man who already claims to stand in right relationship with God through faith must by a life of good works demonstrate that he has become a new creature in Christ.
This analysis of D. Edmond Hiebert seems to support the “faith and works” argument to me. He is saying above that works are essential.
With this Paul thoroughly agreed. Paul was rooting out ‘works’ that excluded and destroyed saving faith;
Right. Paul was “rooting out” specific ways of applying the law that were damaging. He said nothing about abolishing law, and as Romans 3:31 tells us, he explicitly rejects the notion.
James was stimulating a sluggish faith that minimized the results of saving faith in daily life.
So, D. Edmond Hiebert seems to support the idea that faith without works is dead. He’s just emphasizing a middle area where it’s simply “sluggish.”
It never ceases to amaze me the way sola scriptura crowd will play with language in order to impose their extra-biblical innovations upon interpretation of Scripture.
posted July 6, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Anon
this discussion is on Mormonism. if you want to discuss the errors of Rome…the most blatant being intetrpreting Peter as “the rock” Jesus was referring to, as well as the Roman misinterpretation of the “keys to the kingdom”, both errors that completely fly in the face of the plain-meaning of scripture as well as the Koine Greek…then it would be best done on another board.
posted July 6, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Every interpretation has to come directly from the Holy Spirit–if not, it is man’s interpretation and not to be heeded. I don’t accept man’s interpretations from the Bible, but from the Holy Spirit. He is the One who interpretates the Bible and not from man’s intellectual. I will choose any day, a man who is Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, than a man who is a scholor, and yet, doesn’t have the Holy Spirit living in him.
Oof. You have several problems here. First off, you seem to think that you can command the Holy Spirit to guarantee the correctness of you own personal interpretation of Scripture. That’s just downright scary, and I fear for your soul. Truly. You cannot command the Holy Spirit, my friend.
Second, there are thousands of Christian denominations who have split off from each other because they have called upon the Holy Spirit to interpret their Bible, and they have each come up with mutually exclusive and incompatible doctrines. If the Holy Spirit guaranteed their interpretation as you seem to think, these denominations would not be in disagreement. And the Holy Spirit certainly would not deceive them.
Third–Who are you to say who is filled with the Holy Spirit, and who is not? Who is to say that the Holy Spirit does not also work through Mormons in spite of their error about Him?
The sola scriptura crowd cites the Holy Spirit using Him as their own personal trump card for their interpretation. They place themselves as individual Masters of God, and claim their own personal authority based upon it. May God have mercy on them.
I wrote: Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don’t realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations.
POC777 responded:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth–they don’t follow man. If Christians follow man–then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but futher.
Then I guess we should have ignored the Apostles.
Jesus Christ appointed men as his Church and authority on earth. He said very dramatic words to these men: Whatever they hold bound will be held bound in heaven! He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom! I don’t follow the Church just because–I follow his Church because he **commanded it**. If Christ appoints men as his Church, I follow–and I will not be turned away from Christ’s Church simply because you do not like the fact that it consists of men. Especially since you offer me an alternative that is obviously bogus, and requires that I have the arrogance to command the Holy Spirit.
Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn’t lie?
You are reading your own wild interpretation into the Bible. The Bible shows that the Apostles started Churches everywhere and that these *men* were to continue that Church and be faithful to it.
Nowhere does it say that the Church should be ignored, and nowhere does it deny Church authority. The bigger picture of Scripture belies your personal rejection of Christ’s Church.
Right, but every Christian must be like a Berean and search the Scriptures(the Bible) if what people teach is true. If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately.
False according to whose interpretation? By what authority?
The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian–it is not a requirement.
You are confused. If it is essential, that means it is required.
The Deity of Jesus Christ–every Christian must know to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ, as God coming in the flesh, to this world to save mankind from their sin-debt. If a new Christian, doesn’t know these doctrines and then graduates from his or her body, that Christian is going to Heaven.
This really has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation. And it is not your place to say who goes to heaven, and who doesn’t. That is God’s decision. Once more, you are taking your own personal interpretation of Scripture and commanding God to follow your interpretation. And by doing so, you are making judgments that are *forbidden* to us. By what authority? By what authority is your interpretation worth anything?
I will always point to the robber next to Jesus on the cross, who repented of his sins and confessed “LORD”–who did not get baptized or even learned one doctrine–he went to Heaven on that day to be with Jesus Christ.
We have hope for all men. That is why I have rebuked a few for condemning Mormons. But this has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation.
I wrote: So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
POC777 responds:
Almost every post in this debate, cleary shows that Mormonism is not Christian. For the reason, that the BOM is not “another testament of Jesus Christ” because there are only two testaments: Old Testament and New Testament, which come from the Bible–Mormon doctrine… opposes, denies and contradicts on what God has already said in the Bible.
By what authority do you say that the BOM is not another testament of Jesus Christ? You reject the authority of Christian Orthodoxy, so you have nothing. Nothing in your Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament.
I reject their book. But it is impossible to reject the book on the basis of text alone.
posted July 6, 2007 at 12:57 pm
since you brought it up…
Robert Sungenis and evpi. tau,th|
by James White
The book, Jesus, Peter & the Keys, attempts to provide responses to some of the arguments that have been put forward against the unique, and sometimes very strained, exegetical claims of Rome. In particular, this book often cites Robert Sungenis, a Westminster Seminary graduate, as their primary source of Greek scholar. While we are unaware of any advanced study in the field on the part of Mr. Sungenis beyond a Master’s degree, and have never been informed that he has professional teaching experience, published scholarly works, etc., his opinions on the grammar of the Greek text are presented as the “final word” by Jesus, Peter & the Keys (see our summary review elsewhere on this page)
On page 25 of JP&K, Sungenis is cited in response to an argument that I have presented a number of times. In fact, Sungenis’ comments on pages 24 and 25 are taken directly from those he made in our debate at Boston College in 1995. Beginning on page 24, Sungenis attempts to strengthen the Roman Catholic identification of Peter as the rock of Matthew 16:18 by discussing, briefly, the demonstrative pronoun tau,th|, which is the dative feminine singular form of ou=toj, meaning “this.” He points out that at times this term can be translated “this very” as in “this very night your soul is required of you” (Luke 12:20). While this is quite true, it is also quite irrelevant, for even the translation “and upon this very rock I will build My church” does not shed any light whatsoever upon the identity of the “rock.” In fact, I believe such a translation would argue against the position Sungenis takes, for there would be no reason to use a demonstrative pronoun with such emphasis immediately upon saying su. ei= Pe,troj (You are Peter) if Jesus was identifying Peter and the “rock.” The more tau,th| is emphasized, the less likely the antecedent is Peter. That is, the stronger tau,th| is translated, the stronger the disjunction between Peter and this rock.
The main argument I have presented in the past, and to which Sungenis and Scott Butler are attempting to respond in JP&K, is this: when one reads the text as it stands (i.e., when one does not immediately abandon the Greek and run to a mythical, unverifiable “Aramaic original”), one is struck with how strange it is that Jesus takes the “long way around” to get to making the equation “Peter = rock” if in fact that is His intention. It would have been much simpler to say, “You are Peter, and on you I will build My church.” But He didn’t say that. Instead, here are His words:
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:03 pm
The Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
What then is the role of works? Fruit of our salvation:
“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:10
The *we* in “we are His workmanship” are those who have been “created in Christ Jesus*. These new creations were created for: good works.
If someone claims to be a “new creation” and yet produces no good works then that person’s profession of faith is “dead”. Why? Because “new creations” always produce works, some thirty-fold, some sixty-fold, and some hundred-fold. Thus “faith without works” is truly dead. It is counterfeit. True saving faith (the type of faith that those who are *created in Christ Jesus* possess) always produces works. How do we know if someone’s faith is dead or whether it is salvific? Our Lord gives us the answer, “You will know them by their fruits”.
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Mr. 12:40. If you would actually read the progression of the posts, you would see that the facts presented have everything to do with Mormonism. I use them to compare authority with the lack of authority that is being used to discredit Mormonism through scripture alone. They are also being used to ridicule those who ridiculed Mormons for interpreting scripture.
I’m all for a fair comparison of Truth and a discussion that supports one religion over another. But I am not for an *unfair* one. I have the same problem with these guys as I do with some of the Mormons. They believe they can impose meaning on things by sheer will, and they wreak distruction on meaning by doing so. They hurt both Mormonism and Christianity by doing so–probably Christianity more so.
But thanks for looking out for me.
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Mr. 12:56, I haven’t even read your post because you aren’t having a discussion, you are being lazy and regurgitating a bunch of text of some dude I really don’t care about.
All I have to do to refute whatever it is you are saying with your personal interpretation of the Keys of the Kingdom and other such things is: By what authority do you say my interpretation is wrong? By what authority do you say that your interpretation is right?
Clearly *you* have a problem with providing your interpretation any kind of credibility. No matter how many scholars you cite, these are just men who brought their preconceived notions to the table and made thier interpretations accordingly. But by what authority? Do you command the Holy Spirit?
Obviously, the Catholic interpretation of those Scriptures are *solid*. They are reasonable, and they are harmonious with all of the rest of Scripture. You cannot refute that simply because you don’t like it.
I may or may not read the rest of it when I have time.
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:24 pm
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
AC, there is still a Grand Canyons worth of room for interpretation here.
The funny thing is that we can all come up with lines in Scripture that seem to contradict. And we all are *forced* to realize that there must be some different meaning for them not to contradict. But then *you* AC bring your own preconceived notions to the table to reconcile those apparent contradictions. You read into the Bible, not out of it.
So, when I see the above quote, I ask myself: “What does it mean in the context of what has already been said?” Since we know faith without works is dead, we know that the “faith” mentioned in the quote includes works, and we also know that something mysterious is meant by “works” here. Especially when you consider that an act of faith is a *work*.
Consider the fact that it says it (which is clearly grace) is the gift of God, not works. Well–how do you know that this isn’t talking about the works of faith? In other words, the complete verse is intended to say something like: “You are saved by grace *through* faith, but not because of it, because grace, ultimately, is a gift from God.”
Perfectly reasonable.
We can play this game all day–and that is the nature of my main argument. WE CANNOT RESOLVE THIS BY CITING TEXT ALONE. No matter what I say, you will have a counter interpretation. No matter what you say, I will have a counter interpretation. And all of these interpretations might be perfectly reasonable. But it gets us nowhere, because there is no authority whatsoever behind your intepretations. I have no reason at all to choose your pet ideas–innovations of the Reformation–over the teachings of the Church Christ ordained.
I am not going to play this text exchange game. It is endless and it does violence to *meaning*.
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Whether a person is a Christian, boils down to a few key questions.
1) Do they accept the god that is revealed in the Bible, that is a one god in three persons? This doctrine, though never stated outright in the Bible, as many surely will have claimed, is still very clear. In the Old Testament, God is revealed as being “one” and that there was no other before or after Him. In the New Testament, there are three distinct persons identified as God: The Father, The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This would sound like there are three distinct gods, except that they are constantly identified as being one (see John 1). Thus we come to the doctrine of a Triune God. Therefore, if a person denies this, they are by definition not a Christian because they reject the God of the very Christ they claim to serve.
2) Do they accept that Jesus was God? Many say that Jesus never claimed that He was God, and to them I would say that they need to read the Bible more closely. Jesus did claim to be God, and quite often. Just one example of this would be where Jesus said “I and the Father are one.” Another would be where He said, “before Abraham was, I am.” This isn’t just some slip of the tongue, Jesus was ascribing to himself the covenant name of God and at the same time also eternality. So, if you reject that Jesus was God, that leaves him to be either a madman or a fool. And neither of these, I believe, would be worth following.
3) Are they saved? Now, I know that there is all kinds of controversy over what this means, but I believe if you take the Bible at face value it is very clear. We are all sinners (Romans 3:23), one way or another and stand at enmity with God. Jesus, who was God, came to earth in the form of a man and lived a perfect life then died on the cross. This was to pay the price for our sin, which is death (Romans 6:23), so that we wouldn’t have to to. He was then resurrected from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). So, what does it take to be saved? First we have to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, this means we have to acknowledge that He is God (the Greek word “kurios,” which is translated lord, carries with it the connotation of deity)and the sovereign of our lives. Secondly we have to believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. Now how is all this accomplished, by the Grace of God working through our faith and apart from our good deeds. If we place our trust in Christs atoning sacrifice on the cross, then we are saved.
In conclusion, if any one rejects any of these three, they are definitionally not a Christian. And as far as I know, the Mormon church rejects all three. So, while the Mormon church and the three major branches of Christianity may agree on many things, Mormonism is not just another Christian denomination, it is a heretical off-shoot of Christianity.
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:26 pm
This is a convenient way of avoiding interacting with facts contradict your view. It matters not whether I cite an article or whether you regurgitate what a priest taught you. You can choose to interact with the evidence or you can hide from it by using excuses like this.
Umm…how about the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language that the New Testament was written in. Or are those just “my interpratation” as well?
see above response. i’m providing scholarly sources based up universal facts (like grammar, or publications of the LDS Church), you, however, have provided no such support other than your own opinions. i never mentioned the Holy Spirit at all so I’m not sure where you’re grasping that from.
and the fingers go into the ears and “lalalalalala”. I just provided an article that clearly refutes the Roman interpretation based on grammar. You cannot refute that simply because you don’t like it.
posted July 6, 2007 at 1:42 pm
As a Christian (who is not a Mormon), I am primarily concerned with the truth claims of the LDS that are historically, archaeologically, and geographically incompatible with the facts.
I would encourage anyone interested in in learning about the differences between historical Christianity and the claims of the LDS to investigate the facts for themselves.
Here is a good place to start: http://www.lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm
posted July 6, 2007 at 2:15 pm
This is a convenient way of avoiding interacting with facts contradict your view. It matters not whether I cite an article or whether you regurgitate what a priest taught you. You can choose to interact with the evidence or you can hide from it by using excuses like this.
Oh, please. Get over yourself. First of all, look at the thousands of words in this discussion that I have read and written.
Second, I can dump thousands more words in front of you and claim “you just aren’t willing to face the evidence” if you don’t read them. I have read many, many books on religion, and I have no reason to believe that what you have dumped here isn’t just more of the same tired out old arguments along with the claim that you somehow command the Holy Spirit. If you want to have a discussion–select the actual arguments that you think refutes my position instead of being lazy and dumping that whole thing as if it made the argument for you. (Unless you simply don’t want to be taken seriously.)
Third, I have presented you with an objection. If–somewhere in that mass of text–there is something that deals with that objection (I truly doubt there is) please indicate it so that we can scrutinize it without going through the rest of the tedious stuff.
Fourth, I said I might read it. But without any commentary from your about what its salient points are, there really is no reason for me to do so.
Fifth, making the statement “This is a convenient way of avoiding interacting with facts contradict your view.” in the context of this discussion is a puerile, shoolyard statement to make. Grow up.
posted July 6, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Umm…how about the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language that the New Testament was written in. Or are those just “my interpratation” as well?
They absolutely do not change the fact that you are interpreting text. Any self-respecting linguist will tell you that. Words–whether Koine Greek or American English–are not absolute. If they were–meaning would have to be relative.
You also state that as if Koine Greek were absolutely understood without error, and that is an obviously silly thing to imply.
I wrote: …Do you command the Holy Spirit?
…see above response.
The above response obviously does nothing for you. It actually demonstrates your disconnect with reality.
i’m providing scholarly sources based up universal facts (like grammar, or publications of the LDS Church), you, however, have provided no such support other than your own opinions.
Wait a minute. You are claiming that you are the master of universal grammar over everyone else? You are under the delusion that grammar is static? You are clearly delusional about the first, and excessively uneducated about the second.
And why should I except for a second the authority that you claim over grammar (chuckle) and the authority of the “scholars” you cite? And why should I reject 2000 years worth of scholarship that was done by the Catholic Church?
i never mentioned the Holy Spirit at all so I’m not sure where you’re grasping that from.
Just a mix of posters. But if you don’t claim the Holy Spirit (which I consider fortunate for your sake), what authority do you claim?
You obviously have none.
I wrote: Obviously, the Catholic interpretation of those Scriptures are *solid*. They are reasonable, and they are harmonious with all of the rest of Scripture. You cannot refute that simply because you don’t like it.
You replied: and the fingers go into the ears and “lalalalalala”. I just provided an article that clearly refutes the Roman interpretation based on grammar. You cannot refute that simply because you don’t like it.
Pish posh. Do you think taunting improves your position? You haven’t proven squat with your document. I know it before I read it. Please tell us what about that article *proves* it. If you cannot articulate it, you don’t understand it yourself, and you are only hoping they prove it because you want to dump someone elses writing into a post and pretend that you have “won.”
And, yet, notice that you have not shown any reason at all why we should accept your authority.
Get over yourself, man.
posted July 6, 2007 at 2:44 pm
You are still avoiding the arguments put forward. I’m not going to be distracted by “arguing about arguing”. Either read and respond or choose not to. I have read almost all of what you have posted and I haven’t seen anything other than your opinion informed by Rome.
I could care less how many books you’ve read on religion. If you put forth a source, I will read it and address any arguments in it. You, however, refuse to do the same. Its easy to believe something and gorge yourself on only sources that support what you believe. Its another thing to interact with opposing viewpoints. Truth stands up to cross-examination.
The whole thing is salient or else i would not have posted the whole thing. I can’t help it if someone might be too lazy to read it. You are quite good at dismissing things without reading them. I’m sorry if its “tedious”. Not everything can be packaged up for you in a nice neat little package. Sometimes we must do some heavy lifting.
When someone in a discussion is presented with an opposing viewpoint and they do not respond and try to redirect the conversation, or dismiss the facts without even reading them, that is avoiding interaction with the facts. I’m sorry if that offended you. If I speed and get pulled over and the officer tells me I was speeding, I’m not going to tell him “thats a puerile, shoolyard statement to make. Grow up.” If you’re not willing to read or interact with opposing facts put forth, you are avoiding interacting with them whether you’re offended at that statement or not.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Anon
you, like the Mormons on this board, continually refuse to have a real discussion. When someone places facts before you that are contradictory to your viewpoint, you either refuse to read them (15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much) or you shift focus to something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
so, you can blow all the hot air you would like. your absence of ability to understand the concept of “grammar rules” is truly amazing, but I’m not going to follow you down this rabbit trail. until you want to have an actual scholarly discussion, I am done responding. i don’t have the time to spend endlessly chasing you down these rabbit trails while you avoid the essential elements of the contradicting facts you have been presented.
i have seen this go on forever from other Mormons and Roman Catholics and I know it is almost always fruitless. have a good day and please know i have no ill will towards you whatsoever and i wish you the best.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:08 pm
David Dittmer recently made these comments critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
David: Whether a person is a Christian, boils down to a few key questions.
David: 1) Do they accept the god that is revealed in the Bible, that is a one god in three persons? In the New Testament, there are three distinct persons identified as God: The Father, The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This would sound like there are three distinct gods, except that they are constantly identified as being one (see John 1). Thus we come to the doctrine of a Triune God. Therefore, if a person denies this, they are by definition not a Christian because they reject the God of the very Christ they claim to serve.
Mike: Mormons accept the God that is revealed in the Bible. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons. We also believe that they are one God. We believe the account in John 17. It states that believers may also be one with God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, as they are one with each other. This unity as expressed in John 17 is a unity of love, power, understanding and will. there is no verse in the Bible that defines the unity of the Godhead as being physical, or any other way besides that defined in John 17.
David: 2) Do they accept that Jesus was God? Many say that Jesus never claimed that He was God, and to them I would say that they need to read the Bible more closely. Jesus did claim to be God, and quite often. Just one example of this would be where Jesus said “I and the Father are one.” Another would be where He said, “before Abraham was, I am.” This isn’t just some slip of the tongue, Jesus was ascribing to himself the covenant name of God and at the same time also eternality.
Mike: Mormons accept that Jesus was and is God. When Jesus said that he and the Father are one and before Abraham was I am, Mormons believe Him. That oneness again ius expressed in John 17. Mormons believe that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father.
David: 3) Are they saved? Now, I know that there is all kinds of controversy over what this means, but I believe if you take the Bible at face value it is very clear. We are all sinners (Romans 3:23), one way or another and stand at enmity with God. Jesus, who was God, came to earth in the form of a man and lived a perfect life then died on the cross. This was to pay the price for our sin, which is death (Romans 6:23), so that we wouldn’t have to to. He was then resurrected from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). So, what does it take to be saved? First we have to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, this means we have to acknowledge that He is God (the Greek word “kurios,” which is translated lord, carries with it the connotation of deity)and the sovereign of our lives. Secondly we have to believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. Now how is all this accomplished, by the Grace of God working through our faith and apart from our good deeds. If we place our trust in Christs atoning sacrifice on the cross, then we are saved.
Mike: Statements David made about salvation:
We are all sinners. Mormons agree.
Jesus, who is God, lived a prefect live and atoned for our sins. Mormons agree.
Jesus paid for our sins so we wouldn’t have to. Mormons agree
Jesus was resurrected and returned to the Father. Mormons Agree
To be saved we must:
a) confess Jesus with our mouth. Mormons would say this is a good first step.
b) believe in our hearts that God raised him form the dead. Mormons believe this,
David says all of this is accomplished by the Grace of God working through faith and apart from our good deeds. Mormons believe that without Grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ we could never be saved.
What has Jesus told us we should do so that we may lay hold on this faith and his grace?
“I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will DO what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12)
What does Jesus say? “anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing”.
So faith is not just an abstract concept, but a concrete principle demonstrated by doing. “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (John 14:15) “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” (John 14:21) “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:23-24)
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Let’s recap: We show love and faith for Jesus and his Father by obeying their commandments and teachings. the Holy Ghost will teach or reveal what we should do. If we do those things the Father and Son will come and dwell with us.
Now Jesus teaches how we are saved
1″I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.” (John 15:1-4)
Jesus says that the branches that are cut off are those that “bear no fruit” that is, they do not do the works Jesus commands. Even those disciples that do his works will be tried and tested to allow them to grow and do even more. Once a branch is cut off from Christ, due to a lack of faith manifested by failing to keep his commandments, it cannot live or bear fruit apart from him.
5″I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.” (John 15:5-8)
9″As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command.” (John 15:9-14)
David concludes by saying: “In conclusion, if any one rejects any of these three, they are definitionally not a Christian. And as far as I know, the Mormon church rejects all three. So, while the Mormon church and the three major branches of Christianity may agree on many things, Mormonism is not just another Christian denomination, it is a heretical off-shoot of Christianity.”
Mike: David hasn’t studied enough about the Mormons to know what he is talking about. Since we reject none of the three conditions David states. and since the bible tells us how to lay hold on Fatih in John 14 and 15, and how to be one as God is one, and since Mormons believe that this Bible teaching is true, we are most definitely Christians.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Travis –
That PBS special on the Mormons had a telling quote from some guy who was a real doubter, something like:
“… there is no more archaeological etc. evidence for the Book of Mormon, than there is for the historical verifiability of Jesus.”
What are accepted as “facts” is ever evolving, especially in science, as well as history.
As I said above, contradiction is often in the eye of the beholder.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Mike Bennion,
Either you believe in things that differ from official LDS Church documents or you are using the same Christian terms David used, but they mean different things to you than they do to David.
When Mormons and Christians are forced to define what they mean when they use Christian terms, thats where you find the differences.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I have been a Mormon for 43 years and have extensively studied LDS and non-LDS doctrine at a graduate University Level. I know what the Mormon church believes and my statements above are consistent with that belief.
I just quoted the Bible to support my assertions. Show me where what I said is wrong.
I invite you to discuss this with me our website is truthrestored.townhall.com
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I’m off to work. I’ll check in on this later.
Mike
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:38 pm
To the blog monitor,
If you are going to censor me for issues of courtesy, I think you should be consistent and delete several of the posts above. I am no less courtious than they are to me.
In the meantime, “Message received.”
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Ah!
Here is why you are reviewing my post:
URLS: You may share the URL of a web resource other members may find useful, but you agree not to post URLs repeatedly or for the purpose of promoting a website or service (see “Solicitation” above). You agree not to post a hyperlink to or URL of a site that violates these Rules of Conduct. You will not reproduce chain letters, pyramid schemes, mail fraud schemes, or any other unauthorized advertising.
I was absolutely NOT promoting anything. I was posting links to articles that were *directly* relevant to the discussion. Thanks.
Hopefully you will see the purpose in what I did so that my interlocutors can see it shortly.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I understand perfectly the above statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mormonism is true. It only serves to illustrate that you are well versed in the Mormon faith. That, I do not doubt.
I never said you were wrong anywhere. My point is that when a Mormon says he believes in Jesus, it is different than a Christian saying he believes in Jesus.
To a Mormon, Jesus is a spirit-brother of Lucifer. To a Christian, he isn’t. Mormons and Christians can say the exact same sentence, yet mean completely different things. Thats is my point…that when Mormons and Christians are forced to define the terms they use, then it is plain to see there are fundamental differences.
posted July 6, 2007 at 3:59 pm
you, like the Mormons on this board, continually refuse to have a real discussion.
It seems to me that *you* are the one who has yet to respond to the issue of authority. You criticize me – taunt me – for not following up, but now you get cranky and run? That is profoundly hypocritical.
When someone places facts before you that are contradictory to your viewpoint, you either refuse to read them (15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much) or you shift focus to something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The problem is that you are bent out of shape because we don’t accept your authority regarding “facts.” But your “facts” are wrong. And now that you are exposed as having no authority whatsoever, you are upset. You are upset that you – by force of will – cannot play God and tell us what the facts are.
so, you can blow all the hot air you would like.
It’s my favorite pass-time. Thanks.
your absence of ability to understand the concept of “grammar rules” is truly amazing, but I’m not going to follow you down this rabbit trail.
You mean–my absence of accepting your simple-minded error about the nature of grammar? And my refusal to let you name yourself Master of Grammar over the rest of us?
until you want to have an actual scholarly discussion, I am done responding. i don’t have the time to spend endlessly chasing you down these rabbit trails while you avoid the essential elements of the contradicting facts you have been presented.
Yeah. That’s right. *I’m* running away. (If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny.)
i have seen this go on forever from other Mormons and Roman Catholics and I know it is almost always fruitless.
Right. It is fruitless because your sophistry has met a dead end. You have found yourself with no authority and no reasonable way to back up your view. It is fruitless because you are trying to tear down a Church of brick by whipping it with a chewing gum wrapper.
have a good day and please know i have no ill will towards you whatsoever and i wish you the best.
No. There was no ill will in the way you taunted me at all. And there is no ill will in me saying that you are running away and proving the lack of authority behind everything you said above.
While you are running, you might stop somewhere to get a book on linguitstics. A college bookstore would be best.
posted July 6, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Anon,
excellent scholarly post. your words reveal much truth about yourself.
posted July 6, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 16:18
posted July 6, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Unsigned @ 3.03: You’re the same person who was trying to entice me into a scripture bash yesterday. You failed then, so now you’re going after a moderate Christian instead. Seems you’re getting mad because he’s not interested in being abused and insulted by you either.
Have you considered consulting a therapist about these obsessional issues? You seem to be doing the blog equivalent of stalking. You know what I mean … becoming fixated on a particular person, and finally becoming aggressive when they refuse to react the way you fantasized they would.
“15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much”
You got that one right! Nobody here owes you that much.
“until you want to have an actual scholarly discussion”
I love scholarly discussions. But you’re no scholar.
posted July 6, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Every interpretation has to come directly from the Holy Spirit–if not, it is man’s interpretation and not to be heeded. I don’t accept man’s interpretations from the Bible, but from the Holy Spirit. He is the One who interpretates the Bible and not from man’s intellectual. I will choose any day, a man who is Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, than a man who is a scholor, and yet, doesn’t have the Holy Spirit living in him.
Oof. You have several problems here. First off, you seem to think that you can command the Holy Spirit to guarantee the correctness of you own personal interpretation of Scripture. That’s just downright scary, and I fear for your soul. Truly. You cannot command the Holy Spirit, my friend.
Second, there are thousands of Christian denominations who have split off from each other because they have called upon the Holy Spirit to interpret their Bible, and they have each come up with mutually exclusive and incompatible doctrines. If the Holy Spirit guaranteed their interpretation as you seem to think, these denominations would not be in disagreement. And the Holy Spirit certainly would not deceive them.
Third–Who are you to say who is filled with the Holy Spirit, and who is not? Who is to say that the Holy Spirit does not also work through Mormons in spite of their error about Him?
The sola scriptura crowd cites the Holy Spirit using Him as their own personal trump card for their interpretation. They place themselves as individual Masters of God, and claim their own personal authority based upon it. May God have mercy on them.
I wrote: Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don’t realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations.
POC777 responded:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth–they don’t follow man. If Christians follow man–then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but futher.
Then I guess we should have ignored the Apostles.
Jesus Christ appointed men as his Church and authority on earth. He said very dramatic words to these men: Whatever they hold bound will be held bound in heaven! He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom! I don’t follow the Church just because–I follow his Church because he **commanded it**. If Christ appoints men as his Church, I follow–and I will not be turned away from Christ’s Church simply because you do not like the fact that it consists of men. Especially since you offer me an alternative that is obviously bogus, and requires that I have the arrogance to command the Holy Spirit.
Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn’t lie?
You are reading your own wild interpretation into the Bible. The Bible shows that the Apostles started Churches everywhere and that these *men* were to continue that Church and be faithful to it.
Nowhere does it say that the Church should be ignored, and nowhere does it deny Church authority. The bigger picture of Scripture beliefs your personal rejection of Christ’s Church.
My response:
That’s not even what I said above–you denied my question.Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn’t lie?I know that the Holy Apostles planted churches after Jesus ascension to the Father’s right hand. Of course God, is going to use man to fulfill His plan for redemption, He used prophets, prophetesses, kings and priests, Mary and so on, who were normal people.
Today He uses pastors and teachers for the edification of the Body of Christ. I’m not even talking about that, I’m saying that we should examine every man’s interpretation with the “measuring stick” of the Bible: Keep what Jesus, the Apostles and the Epistles taught and deny what contradicts, denies and opposes the Bible. I never mention anything about the Apostles, but about “man”—the natural man–the one without the Holy Spirit—unregenerated who is spiritually dead–you’re putting words in my mouth.
Right, but every Christian must be like a Berean and search the Scriptures(the Bible) if what people teach is true. If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately.
False according to whose interpretation? By what authority?
My response:
God’s authority! So you believe all roads lead to Rome and there’s many ways to get to God? Wrong!
The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian–it is not a requirement.
You are confused. If it is essential, that means it is required.
My response:
You are wrong! Where did Jesus teach that we needed to keep the doctrine of Tri-unity to be saved? Find me one verse and I will believe you. That is not require for salvation–believing and accepting what Jesus Christ did on the cross, is required.
The Deity of Jesus Christ–every Christian must know to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ, as God coming in the flesh, to this world to save mankind from their sin-debt. If a new Christian, doesn’t know these doctrines and then graduates from his or her body, that Christian is going to Heaven.
This really has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation. And it is not your place to say who goes to heaven, and who doesn’t. That is God’s decision. Once more, you are taking your own personal interpretation of Scripture and commanding God to follow your interpretation. And by doing so, you are making judgments that are *forbidden* to us.
My response:
You are wrong. The Bible teaches that all those who have repented of all their sins and receive Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior, are going to Heaven.
Where is it taught that its forbidden to make sound judgments with sound doctrine(the Bible), concerning what you post or others?
How will the Christian know if a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon is true?
I only find in 1 Cor 2:15 that is okay to make judgment what others say. By what you wrote–it contradicts the Bible.
By what authority?
My response:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
*Every Christian has the right and authority to teach, rebuke, correct and instruct–every Christian is allowed to read the Bible and search the Scriptures. It is God’s approvable!
By what authority is your interpretation worth anything?
My response:
Yahweh has given every Christian the authority to weight out what Mormonism teaches or anything else–and reject everything that contradicts, opposes and denies the Bible. He has given me the authority to “cast down every argument”. You are arrogant and proud!
I will always point to the robber next to Jesus on the cross, who repented of his sins and confessed “LORD”–who did not get baptized or even learned one doctrine–he went to Heaven on that day to be with Jesus Christ.
We have hope for all men. That is why I have rebuked a few for condemning Mormons. But this has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation.
My response:
1. I ain’t condemning Mormons but rebuking their doctrine
2. You’re the only person in here who has problems with my posts
3. You haven’t proven what I posted is wrong.
I wrote: So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
POC777 responds:
Almost every post in this debate, cleary shows that Mormonism is not Christian. For the reason, that the BOM is not “another testament of Jesus Christ” because there are only two testaments: Old Testament and New Testament, which come from the Bible–Mormon doctrine… opposes, denies and contradicts on what God has already said in the Bible.
By what authority do you say that the BOM is not another testament of Jesus Christ?
My response:
The Bible is the authority–it rejects the BOM. Adding a pseudo-testament of Jesus Christ, is adding to the Word of God. And he who adds to the Word–God calls them a liar(Proverb 30:5-6) and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
You reject the authority of Christian Orthodoxy, so you have nothing.
My response:
I never said I rejected Orthodox Christianity, find me a post where I say “I reject Orthodox Christainity” and I will believe you. I believe in the Apostles Creed that comes from Orthodox Christianity–and comes directly from the Bible–because there are the doctrines that make up the Body of Christ–the essentials of the faith.
Nothing in your Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament.
My response:
Your Bible? I have the NIV, Jewish Bible, KJV 1611 and NKJV–66 books. You are wrong to say that the Bible does not reject another revelation–it rejects it! Jesus, the Apostles nor the Epistles mention, about another testament of Jesus Christ. As I said in my other post–there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus Christ ever preaching to a group of Indians in the Americas on 34 AD. Show the proof! If there’s no proof, then you are wrong.
I reject their book. But it is impossible to reject the book on the basis of text alone.
My response:
You haven’t proven to us “why” you reject the Book of Mormon–myself and other Christian have posted why we deny the BOM and other Mormon doctrine. You make your posts sound Christian, but maybe you’re not and false. You continue to believe the BOM, being only a fable that can’t be proven by anything or the Nephite golden plates were ever found at Hill Cumorah? Where are they?
Posted by: Anon | July 6, 2007 12:56 PM
posted July 6, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Dont Mormons believe that God is an alien that lives on another planet with “his wife”, and that he is just one of many Gods on many planets in the universe. Dont they also believe that humans can become one of these gods by becoming a Mormon? That doesnt sound like Christianity to me. Thats just for starters too. Theres a whole lot of weird stuff that Mormons believe. It seems more like Scientology to me than Christianity.
posted July 6, 2007 at 7:19 pm
These questions are directed to every Mormon in this debate, I need your honest answers:
1. Can you find me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?
2. Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1)?
3. I’ve read where Joseph Smith said that he translated the golden plates (from which he got the Book of Mormon) letter-by-letter, “by the power of God” and that it was “the most correct of any book on earth.” If that’s true why has the Mormon Church had to make more than 4,000 changes to the Book of Mormon that was originally published in 1830?
posted July 6, 2007 at 7:24 pm
lol. this is just more “lets avoid the issues and toss insults” garbage. the prevalence of this is simply amazing.
your posts don’t indicate that you love discussion. discussion involves interacting with arguments.
posted July 6, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Anon
This is the Apostles Creed:
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: *He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the *holy catholic[universal] church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.
My response:
I believe every statement because every single truth comes directly from the Bible.
*That is, the true Christian church–Body of Christ–every believer in Christ!
*Not Hell, where the fire is not quenched but the abode of the dead.
posted July 6, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Don’t Mormons believe that God is an alien that lives on another planet with “his wife”?
My response:
Of course, they believe He lives on a planet called Kolob(knowing that His headquarters are in Heaven). And believe He had sex with a Heavenly Mother(godness) who produced billions of spiritual babes. Where is this found in the Bible or BOM?
and that he is just one of many Gods on many planets in the universe.
My response:
The question arises: When did God become God? And did God have a grandfather who was also God?
Don’t they also believe that humans can become one of these gods by becoming a Mormon?
My response:
This echos what Satan told Eve in Genesis 3.
That doesn’t sound like Christianity to me. Thats just for starters too. Theres a whole lot of weird stuff that Mormons believe. It seems more like Scientology to me than Christianity.
My response:
It sure does!
Posted by: Bible_Scholar | July 6, 2007 7:16 PM
posted July 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Intellectualism is a very troubling thing. The brain squeezes the love right out of the discussion. It seems to me antithema to “debate” Jesus Christ, or discuss the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a hateful and angry environment. The very nature of the “debate” makes of us combative judges while exposing the tremendous beam hanging from our own eye, all the while wielding a hatchet to aid in the removal of the mote in our lost brother’s eye. What I know of Jesus Christ is this … He gave his life (all of it) to mend the broken, heal the sick, and deliver the captive. May we do likewise. The question for us all might be, “Am I more like Jesus or the Pharasee?”
posted July 6, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Well, it appears my post that had some links on it got swallowed up by the honorable blog monitors, so I’ll try it again without the links.
I was shamed into reading the article above regarding the keys to the kingdom. (I sigh with the back of my hand on my forehead.) It actually surprised me. Not because it wasn’t the same old lame arguments, but because it didn’t claim anything close to what the guy who posted it said it would.
To begin with, let’s review the argument here. I have been saying that you cannot prove your point on text alone. I have said that repeatedly while noting that for every interpretation that you guys throw my way, I will return with a counter interpretation that is every bit as reasonable. And for every interpretation I throw your way, you will return with a counter interpretation that may or may not be every bit as reasonable. Therefore, I never expected the Keys to the Kingdom and Peter as the Rock to be “proved” through biblical texts. But I also knew that the article that was copied here would not prove it wrong.
And, guess what? The authors of the article itself don’t make any claims that it refutes the Catholic interpretations. The article concludes by saying this: “…their exegesis of Matthew 16 will continue to be questionable, having failed to respond to a meaningful challenge to its validity.”
Questionable? I laughed out loud. They don’t claim any refutation at all! They simply say that it will “continue to be questionable.” But that means they are making my case for me, because my case has always stated that you cannot resolve these conflicting interpretations by the Bible alone. You must have some other authority to resolve it.
As I suspected, this article that our mystery poster insisted I was shying away from was the weak, insubstantial article I thought it was.
Furthermore, the authors are obviously stating *opinion*. They use words like “less likely” and “I believe such a translation would argue against…” and “one is struck by how strange it is.” Not at all the type of language you expect in any kind of solid and undisputable proof. Obviously, they were more prudent about their claims than the guy who posted it on this forum.
But even taking that stuff into consideration, their arguments were quite poor.
In order for this article to carry weight, you have to go by the assumption that there is no dispute over how to analyze Greek in general. The authors make no such claim, although they may try to “assume the deal.” Anyone who claims to be “scholarly” (chuckle at the expense of the guy who posted the article) would know that there are many opinions and schools of thought regarding how to parse, analyze, and translate Greek. And that goes just for linguists, let alone theologians with an agenda.
The article also relies on the belief that it was completely isolated in its writing, when we know for a fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic and would have actually spoken the words in Aramaic, not Greek. We have evidence in Scripture of this where the Aramaic was preserved in the name they called Peter–Cephas. Cephas means “rock” in Aramaic, and the fact that they called Peter Cephas for long after the time Jesus spoke the words is very dramatic evidence that he indeed meant that *Peter* was the rock. But the article chooses to ignore this scholarship, instead of consider it. (The article specifically conveyed that it considered it unimportant.)
It also makes ridiculous arguments that are critical of Jesus for not using a pronoun when they thought he should. It’s as if they believe that language can only be spoken in one way without variation.
The confession of Peter stuff was *pure* interpretation that has nothing to do with the linguistics.
The commentary about Sungenis only verified that there are multiple opinions and multiple interpretations about the grammar.
The statement that the Church Fathers do not discuss the Chair of Peter is also dead wrong. The Early Church Fathers not only discuss it–they defer to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes.
The idea that this article would scare me away from facing the arguments is *laughable*. I have read much more challenging opinions in the past. It is more laughable than I predicted, which really puts the puerile remarks of our mystery poster in perspective.
But one good turn deserves another. If, as our interlocutor insists, the fact that someone doesn’t read arguments presented to them and face every argument within means they are avoiding facts that contradict their point of view, then he must act in kind. I have several things for you to read. And–as to your words–if you do not read them all completely, you are avoiding the facts that contradict your personal point of view.
First assignment: Read all three volumes of The Faith of the Early Fathers, by Jurgens.
Second assignment: Go to Catholic Answers on line at www dot catholic dot com. Click on Church & Papacy in the menu under “LIBRARY.” Click on and read all of the following articles:
Apostolic Succession (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
Origins of Peter as Pope (Fathers*)
Papal Infallibility
Peter and the Papacy
Peter the Rock
Peter’s Primacy (Fathers*)
Peter’s Roman Residency (Fathers*)
Peter’s Successors (Fathers*)
Was Peter in Rome?
Third assignment: The Faith of our Fathers, by Gibbons
Fourth assignment: Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, by Currie
That should be enough for now. These resources have facts and arguments that are 100 times more impressive than your article above.
Again–if your words earlier that **taunted me** have ANY credence at all, you must read all of those things carefully and attempt to dispute them. It would be a very hypocritical thing, if you don’t.
Oh. And, by the way, you *still* have not given us any authority that validates the interpretations that you personally prefer.
The question hangs over your head. “By what authority?”
posted July 6, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Dude with no authority wrote: 15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much
WoID responds: You got that one right! Nobody here owes you that much.
My two cents: Right. Especially since he only put about 10 seconds into cutting and pasting, and didn’t show the slightest initiative for making the argument himself.
posted July 6, 2007 at 9:50 pm
POC777, you really need to do some formatting or something. You keep pasting in the entire posts of others without distinguishing who says what, and it makes your posts almost completely unreadable. Please just paste in what you are responding to, and format them in italics or something. (To format in italics put “” at the end of what you want in italics and “” at the beginning. The reason I do it backward here is because the right order would make them disappear while formatting the words between.)
posted July 6, 2007 at 11:50 pm
If you read nothing else, read the section below about Proverb 30:5-6. It pretty much puts a nail in POC777′s coffin. (Give ‘em enough rope…)
That’s not even what I said above–you denied my question.
Since you quoted my entire post, I haven’t a clue what you are referring to.
Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn’t lie?
First of all, Jesus Christ can do whatever it is He sees fit. He appointed the Apostles, but He didn’t just entrust the Church to man. The men to whom He entrusted the Church were subject to his commands, and they were given the responsibility of protecting the Faith and they were also given special protection by the Holy Spirit. Yes, we know that these men were fallible, but they were given special gifts by Christ as I have already mentioned in other posts.
But let’s think about this for a minute. If we cannot trust man at all, as you seem to be saying, then how can we trust the book we call the Bible? The Bible was assembled by man long after the Apostles were gone. The Bible only exists because of decisions made by men of Christ’s Church.
Men decided which of the many books circulating were inspired works. The Gospels were not signed, so *men* witnessed to the fact that they were written by the Apostles.
Also, how can you trust the *men* of the Reformation who took books out of the Bible?
Without some trust of some authority with men involved in some way–You’ve got NOTHING.
But your trouble doesn’t stop there, because you *always* have to trust a *man* to interpret Scripture. Scripture does not rid you of the element man.
I know that the Holy Apostles planted churches after Jesus ascension to the Father’s right hand. Of course God, is going to use man to fulfill His plan for redemption, He used prophets, prophetesses, kings and priests, Mary and so on, who were normal people.
You seem utterly confused here. On the one hand, you say that Christ couldn’t have used men, but on the other hand you say that *of course* He uses men. You seem to know the truth and deny it at the same time.
Today He uses pastors and teachers for the edification of the Body of Christ. I’m not even talking about that, I’m saying that we should examine every man’s interpretation with the “measuring stick” of the Bible: Keep what Jesus, the Apostles and the Epistles taught and deny what contradicts, denies and opposes the Bible.
You cannot possibly use the Bible as a measuring stick without interpreting it. How can you *know* what Jesus, the Apostles and the Epistles taught without interpreting the word of the Bible? You are completely circular here. “Use the Bible to validate the accuracy of the Bible as used by another.” It makes no sense, and it *always* involves one man or another interpreting the Bible.
I never mention anything about the Apostles, but about “man”—the natural man–the one without the Holy Spirit—unregenerated who is spiritually dead–you’re putting words in my mouth.
No–I’m pointing to inconvenient Truths.
POC777 wrote: If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately.
I responded: False according to whose interpretation? By what authority?
POC777 comes back: God’s authority!
So, what you are saying is that you have God’s authority when you make your personal interpretations of Scripture? Do you really think it is wise to claim God’s authority?
So you believe all roads lead to Rome and there’s many ways to get to God? Wrong!
“All roads lead to Rome” is a quote that has nothing to do with the Church, so I really don’t know what your point is here. All I know is that if Jesus Christ appoints men and starts a Church in order to establish Christian authority, I better obey Jesus Christ and His intentions. And the fact that your sola scriptura is obviously a dead-end only bolsters my confidence in Christ’s Wisdom for making the Church the way He did.
POC777 wrote: The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian–it is not a requirement.
I replied: You are confused. If it is essential, that means it is required.
POC777 comes back: You are wrong! Where did Jesus teach that we needed to keep the doctrine of Tri-unity to be saved? Find me one verse and I will believe you. That is not require for salvation–believing and accepting what Jesus Christ did on the cross, is required.
I must have misunderstood you. I didn’t say that anything was essential to salvation. I think that what you are saying is that believing in the doctrine of the Trinity is not required for salvation, while I thought you were saying it was not required to be a Christian faith. You should work on completing your thoughts a little better. (Not putting you down. It’s just that it’s hard enough making sense out of your posts the way it is, so please be a little more precise.)
I wrote: This really has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation. And it is not your place to say who goes to heaven, and who doesn’t. That is God’s decision. Once more, you are taking your own personal interpretation of Scripture and commanding God to follow your interpretation. And by doing so, you are making judgments that are *forbidden* to us.
POC777 responds: You are wrong. The Bible teaches that all those who have repented of all their sins and receive Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior, are going to Heaven.
The Bible does teach us the way to heaven, but the guarantee you claim is based upon your personal interpretation of things. You are not God, and waving the Bible neither makes you God, nor gives you omniscience. Sure, you can have great confidence. But if you put your guard down, you invite the temptations of the devil–and he can still destroy you.
Where is it taught that its forbidden to make sound judgments with sound doctrine(the Bible), concerning what you post or others?
That’s not the question. The question is: How do you know they are sound? By what authority do you say they are sound? You have only answered that once, and you did so by claiming that you carry the authority of God when you interpret Scripture. (See where I quote you above in this post.) My God has taught me to reject false gods, so I am certainly going to reject *you* who claim your own personal godhood with God’s authority.
I only find in 1 Cor 2:15 that is okay to make judgment what others say. By what you wrote–it contradicts the Bible.
It is unclear to what you are referring here, but do you seriously believe this is evidence to your godhood?
I asked again: By what authority?
POC777 replied: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Let’s do a comparison of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 1 Timothy 3:15.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”
Note that this says that Scripture is “profitable.” We both believe Scripture is profitable. I believe it is profitable in the context of Holy Tradition and the Deposit of Faith handed to us by Jesus Christ Himself, while you believe it is profitable in the context of your own personal self-appointed authority.
Note also that it is profitable for certain reasons: teaching, reproving, correction, instruction in justice. All of these things can be done with Scripture, provided you have a context that reveals the original intention of the inspired writers. It says nothing about the Bible being an authority over Truth by itself, nor in the hand of those who have rejected Christian authority. In fact, there is a place in scripture where a man reading Scripture appeals to an Apostle asking how he can possibly understand it if you do not explain it to me? (I’ll see if I can find it.)
So, the scripture you cite only tells us what the Catholic Church already knows, and it describes the usage that the Catholic Church already does. It does *NOTHING* to establish authority in your personal interpretation. (And need I state again all of the mutually exclusive interpretations among “Bible” Christians?)
1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Note in this case that the words are much stronger. The words don’t just say that the Church is “profitable.” It says that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth! Far, far stronger words, indeed!
However, since all you have to do is twist the words to interpret them the way your self-appointed authority desires, I’m sure you will attempt to reinterpret them for me.
But after you go through those acrobatics, you still will not have answered the question: By what authority are your interpretations right, while mine are wrong? By what authority are your interpretations sound? By what authority is your interpretation valid at all?
*Every Christian has the right and authority to teach, rebuke, correct and instruct–every Christian is allowed to read the Bible and search the Scriptures. It is God’s approvable!
I refuted this above already, but–hypothetically, if this meant that every Christian infallibly interpreted Scripture, why do so many faithful Christian Churches disagree with each other about the interpretations of Scripture?
Yahweh has given every Christian the authority to weight out what Mormonism teaches or anything else–and reject everything that contradicts, opposes and denies the Bible. He has given me the authority to “cast down every argument”. You are arrogant and proud!
I’m arrogant and proud? You claim Yahweh’s authority based upon what? Nothing but your own personal interpretation. Did Yahweh appoint you an Apostle? You claim the authority of God for yourself, and you call *me* arrogant?
I read the Bible, too, and I am a faithful Christian, yet I interpret the Bible different than you do. How can that be true if all Christians have the authority of Yahweh?
Your claim is profoundly ridiculous, and I think it is an affront to God.
1. I ain’t condemning Mormons but rebuking their doctrine
I didn’t say you condemned Mormons. I noted that I have rebuked “a few” for condemning them, but I did not finger you. On the other hand, I am criticizing those who say that the Mormons have no authority to interpret Scripture the way they see it, when you interpret Scripture the way you see it.
2. You’re the only person in here who has problems with my posts
So? Even if that’s true (which is doubtful), what does that have to do with your complete lack of an authority?
3. You haven’t proven what I posted is wrong.
If you cannot show us the authority behind your interpretations, I have revealed that you have no authority, and that nobody should take your claims of authority seriously. I have certainly given plenty of evidence that you are, in fact, wrong, but I know that won’t stop you from continuing your own personal mission to read your beliefs *into* Scripture. But it doesn’t matter–because you have no authority.
I wrote: By what authority do you say that the BOM is not another testament of Jesus Christ?
POC777 responds: The Bible is the authority–it rejects the BOM. Adding a pseudo-testament of Jesus Christ, is adding to the Word of God. And he who adds to the Word–God calls them a liar(Proverb 30:5-6) and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
Ahem. That Proverb is from the Old Testament. At the time that Proverb was written, the New Testament didn’t exist. It was **added**. If you stick by this argument, you pretty much condemn the Apostles as liars. At the very least, you disqualify the entire New Testament.
This egregious error on your part demonstrates pretty convincingly that you have no guarantee behind you like you think you do. (I’m sure you will twist words to try to worm out of it, and I really don’t care–it is obvious here that you are in error, and it is obvious that you cannot claim the authority of God.)
I wrote: You reject the authority of Christian Orthodoxy, so you have nothing.
POC777 responds: I never said I rejected Orthodox Christianity, find me a post where I say “I reject Orthodox Christainity” and I will believe you.
Orthodox Christianity consists of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Are you telling me that you submit to their authority? (I didn’t think so.)
I believe in the Apostles Creed that comes from Orthodox Christianity–and comes directly from the Bible–because there are the doctrines that make up the Body of Christ–the essentials of the faith.
Well, then I suggest you study the Creeds a little better, because the first Creeds **preceded** the Bible. The other Creeds were made by the Councils of the Catholic Church.
Also–How do you know you are interpreting the meaning of the Creeds correctly? By what authority? (Keep in mind that we probably agree with a lot of what they mean. But I have an authority to verify the meaning. What do you have?)
I wrote: Nothing in your Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament.
Your Bible? I have the NIV, Jewish Bible, KJV 1611 and NKJV–66 books. You are wrong to say that the Bible does not reject another revelation–it rejects it! Jesus, the Apostles nor the Epistles mention, about another testament of Jesus Christ.
According to Catholic authority, you would be right. But according to what authority can *you* say it is true?
As I said in my other post–there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus Christ ever preaching to a group of Indians in the Americas on 34 AD. Show the proof! If there’s no proof, then you are wrong.
That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament. If you find a verse that supports it, I have every confidence that a Mormon can interpret it in a very reasonable way that says something entirely different.
I wrote: I reject their book. But it is impossible to reject the book on the basis of text alone.
POC777 responds:
You haven’t proven to us “why” you reject the Book of Mormon–
Why I reject the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the fact that you have absolutely no authority to interpret Scripture. It is another conversation alltogether. (Besides–I have already spoken of my authority.)
myself and other Christian have posted why we deny the BOM and other Mormon doctrine.
And I have pointed out that you have no authority to deny their book. We know about the doctrines that make the book exclusive because of Holy Tradition, and we know that there will be no new Divine Revelation because of Holy Tradition. (I also know it by the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, but I’m indicating what *you* know, right now.) You interpret the Bible the way you do because of knowledge that is not expressed in the Bible. But the problem is, you reject any authority except for the Bible, so to you that knowledge is not authoritative. Which means you cannot authoritatively assert the things you know about the Bible. (You cannot assert anything unbiblical.) So even if it is true that the Book of Mormon is not a valid testament, and even if it is true that the Doctrine of the Trinity is correct, you have no authority to say so. You have rejected the Christian authority for an innovation of the Reformation–the doctrine of sola scriptura. And this doctrine has left you with no way to demonstrate any reason at all that your interpretations are authoritative. Because they are not. If I were a Mormon, I would completely ignore you because of this.
You make your posts sound Christian, but maybe you’re not and false.
If you think I am anything but sincere, why are you communicating with me?
I assure you, I am a very faithful Catholic, and I am every bit a faithful Christian as you are. I am also under the assumption you are sincere. If you think it’s time to call me a liar, I suggest you just walk away.
You continue to believe the BOM,
No, I don’t. I told you explicitly that I reject it. But I also reject your false authority–I think you place yourself as a god, and as God commanded, I reject you. I also reject the false methods you use to discredit the Mormons.
being only a fable that can’t be proven by anything or the Nephite golden plates were ever found at Hill Cumorah? Where are they?
I certainly don’t have to prove what I don’t believe.
I don’t think there is much more we can accomplish here, POC777, unless you provide us a credible basis for your authority. I don’t think you should go off on any other tangent in this discussion until you have done that. Because, until you have done that, nothing else you say has any credibility with me.
posted July 6, 2007 at 11:55 pm
(To format in italics put “” at the end of what you want in italics and “” at the beginning. The reason I do it backward here is because the right order would make them disappear while formatting the words between.)
Well, that didn’t work out as planned. Let’s see if this words. In order to make italis, you use the “
posted July 6, 2007 at 11:59 pm
LOL. That didn’t work at all. My best advice, then, is to look up the tags you can use for HTML formatting.
posted July 7, 2007 at 12:21 am
Your posts all break down due to one thing Anon, the Catholic Church does not have the authority you claim it does. Without that authority, your interpretations are just as meaningless as you claim everyone else’s to be.
posted July 7, 2007 at 12:30 am
I made some statements before, that I must confess, were made in ignorance. Or rather, they were made on the basis of what I had always been told about what Mormons believe. So, I apologize for making those statements. However, after going to the official LDS webpage and beginning to read through the basic beliefs, I am just as concerned. One of the things that is getting under my skin is the notion that there is still a necessity for a modern-day, physical, priesthood. To be blunt, there is no such need. The role of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God and to make atonement for sins. Even according to LDS teachings, Christ died as a perfect atonement. There is no more need to make earthly sacrifices, so there is no need for a priesthood. On top of that, there is no more need for a priesthood because we have one who is the Perfect High Priest. Jesus was not just a member of the Aaronic or Melchizadekian priesthood, he was the fulfillment of them.
posted July 7, 2007 at 12:30 am
Wow, from the length and energy indicated by these postings I can see why the LDS folks feel a bit outside of things. Many electrons were sacrificed just in the couple of days over this one. It’s a good thing the internet does not generate methane, because this would be a stinky place right now. Here’s a thought…
My wife has a theory – in response to name droppers everywhere – It is not very interesting to hear about who you know or with whom you say you are associated. It is much more impressive to have that famous person or renowned group say they know or are associated with you. So to answer the question, Who decides is aperson or group is Christian – ask the one whose title is being tossed around so lightly. Short of doing that, our own answers are just sneezes in a hurricane.
Gesundheit!
posted July 7, 2007 at 12:49 am
To answer David’s question, the need for Priesthood is simple. Jesus Christ is not on the earth physically to run things. He needs stewards to do His work. That is all priesthood is, the power and authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ.
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:08 am
Your posts all break down due to one thing Anon, the Catholic Church does not have the authority you claim it does. Without that authority, your interpretations are just as meaningless as you claim everyone else’s to be.
That is almost 100% correct.
The fact of the matter is, even with Catholic authority, my personal interpretations that I base upon Catholic authority and doctrine are still very suspect.
Regarding Catholic interpretation, you are also correct. Either Catholic is the legitimate authority of Christ, or it is not. If it is not, I am in the same boat as everyone else who has no legitimate authority. But that just means that nobody has any authority about nothin’, and we might as well forget the whole thing.
But in a practical sense, I am still far ahead of the sola scriptura people. Because Catholicism *can* be authoritative, while the Bible alone clearly *cannot*.
Fortunately for me, I am fairly studied in the early Church, and I am aware of an amazing amount of Divine Revelation that gives me 100% confidence in the Catholic Church. So I’m good!
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:19 am
One of the things that is getting under my skin is the notion that there is still a necessity for a modern-day, physical, priesthood. To be blunt, there is no such need. The role of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God and to make atonement for sins.
Hello, David.
Actually, along with giving Peter and the Apostles the work of making the Church and establishing Bishops, he also gave them the command to “Feed my sheep.” (Christ says that in the Bible.) There are many mentions in the New Testament regarding presbyters and deacons, who are men with holy orders, and the priesthood are the men who feed Christ’s sheep through the Word and through the Sacraments.
There is really a rich amount of knowledge about this stuff, including in the Bible, and–I’ve proven I’m a repetitive person–a good study of the Early Church Fathers will demonstrate a lot of what was going on in Christ’s Church.
So, you see, the priesthood are doing what Christ commanded the Church to do.
I would be interested in anything you might think shows that Jesus abolished the priesthood, but–if you have been following my other comments–you know what I think about personal interpretations and claims of personal authority.
Cheers!
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:33 am
Because Catholicism *can* be authoritative, while the Bible alone clearly *cannot*.
It should be clarified that Catholic authority includes three things. It includes Holy Tradition (the Deposit of the Faith), the Magisterium (the Pope and the College of Bishops), and the Holy Bible.
None of these things can override the others. The intended meaning of the Bible is inerrant, and the Pope does not have the authority to override that meaning. He also doesn’t have the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith. He and the Magisterium do have the protection of the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine and Sacraments. It is in this context that Catholic authority interprets Scripture.
The Bible also supports the other two. Paul tells us to hold fast to the Traditions that he teaches–both written *and* unwritten–and he also tells us (as quoted earlier) that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. (Some translations say “pillar and bulwark.”)
All three are a complete and harmonious authority established by Jesus Christ Himself, and preserved by His Church and His inspired writers.
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:34 am
David: I made some statements before, that I must confess, were made in ignorance. Or rather, they were made on the basis of what I had always been told about what Mormons believe. So, I apologize for making those statements. However, after going to the official LDS webpage and beginning to read through the basic beliefs, I am just as concerned. One of the things that is getting under my skin is the notion that there is still a necessity for a modern-day, physical, priesthood. To be blunt, there is no such need. The role of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God and to make atonement for sins. Even according to LDS teachings, Christ died as a perfect atonement. There is no more need to make earthly sacrifices, so there is no need for a priesthood. On top of that, there is no more need for a priesthood because we have one who is the Perfect High Priest. Jesus was not just a member of the Aaronic or Melchizadekian priesthood, he was the fulfillment of them.
Mike: thank you for your apology, and I admire the fact that you went to the source to read about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
As to your assertion about the priesthood this link has a detailed response with extensive Biblical documentation as support for the LDS doctrine. http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Jesus_is_the_only_Melchizedek_priesthood_holder
I could tie up lots of space and cut and paste, but I expect that someone like yourself who is apparently fair enough to go to a primary source, will follow up without me doing that.
In addiction I would be happy to discuss this further at paisme@hotmail.com or at truthrestored.townhall.com
Mike
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:35 am
err…addition.
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:50 am
Mike: I have been a Mormon for 43 years and have extensively studied LDS and non-LDS doctrine at a graduate University Level. I know what the Mormon church believes and my statements above are consistent with that belief.
?: I understand perfectly the above statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mormonism is true. It only serves to illustrate that you are well versed in the Mormon faith. That, I do not doubt.
Mike: I just quoted the Bible to support my assertions. Show me where what I said is wrong.
?: I never said you were wrong anywhere. My point is that when a Mormon says he believes in Jesus, it is different than a Christian saying he believes in Jesus.
To a Mormon, Jesus is a spirit-brother of Lucifer. To a Christian, he isn’t. Mormons and Christians can say the exact same sentence, yet mean completely different things. Thats is my point…that when Mormons and Christians are forced to define the terms they use, then it is plain to see there are fundamental differences.
Posted by: | July 6, 2007 3:57 PM
Mikes Response: earlier ? you said this: “Either you believe in things that differ from official LDS Church documents or you are using the same Christian terms David used, but they mean different things to you than they do to David.”
So my first response was in response to the first part of this statement.
If David and I mean different things by the terms we use than it is incumbent upon us to prayerfully study the doctrines of Christianity from the Bible to see whether our beliefs are supported by that document. I am satisfied, having done just that, that LDS doctrine is indeed supported by Biblical writ, and that there is no proscription that would limit God from giving further revelation than what is already contained in the Holy Bible.
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:59 am
Travis earlier made these remarks:
As a Christian (who is not a Mormon), I am primarily concerned with the truth claims of the LDS that are historically, archaeologically, and geographically incompatible with the facts.
I would encourage anyone interested in in learning about the differences between historical Christianity and the claims of the LDS to investigate the facts for themselves.
Here is a good place to start: http://www.lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm
Mike’s response:
For the fair minded readers out there who want both sides of the issue so they can make informed decisions:
By all means, look at Travis’ recommended website
Then to see the LDS prespective on the issue see the following:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/
http://www.mormon.org
http://www.lds.org
truthrestored.townhall.com
Mike
posted July 7, 2007 at 5:44 am
What makes us non-Christian versus unorthodox?
Do these issues tie into salvation? In other words, do you believe Mormons will be damned for their (according to you) false beliefs about Christ?
Do you recognize that Mormons do claim (and sincerely strive, for the most part) to follow Jesus of Nazareth, even if they have (supposedly) incorrect beliefs?
What are the minimums of being a Christian, whether orthodox or not?
Are you claiming authority to speak for all orthodox Christians when you classify us as non-Christian “according to orthodox Christianity”?
Would all orthodox Christians agree with your assessment? If not, why claim authority to answer the question “according to orthodox Christianity” if they don’t agree on this point?
posted July 7, 2007 at 6:09 am
Joie, is so far off on what Mormons belive that it is hard to reconise what you are talking about.
posted July 7, 2007 at 6:14 am
Joie, I am a convert to the LDS church and I know I have always been taught that Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of the Living God our Father in Heaven. I know this as a fact along with most Mormons so I don’t know what church you were raised in but it was not he Mormon church out of Salt Lake City, Utah.
posted July 7, 2007 at 6:20 am
You are right. If this is what I have to belive and do to become a Christian then I know I am not your kind of Christian an I am grateful for it. I have never heard of such sillness as if you don’t renounce your faith you can not be called a Christian even though you belive Jesus Christ is the Son of God our Father in Heaven. You people have some major problems. Or to much time on your hands.
posted July 7, 2007 at 6:33 am
Levia,
“they only use the name to legitamatize themselves.” Mormons don’t use any name to legitamatize ourselves to anyone. We are Gods children and belive in Jesus Christ the Son of the living God our Father in Heaven, so I this make me a non-christian then iam that iam.
posted July 7, 2007 at 10:08 am
Anon
Forgive me, if I offended you with my posts–but you also were arrogant and proud. With all due respect, I know where you are coming from–I was raise as a Catholic and went through the same road. I left RCC at age 11–because I felt the Holy Spirit was not there(as Christian will tell me) and decided to jump into other religions over the years–I almost became a Satanist. I don’t follow Tradition as you do, I follow Jesus Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God to help me be obedient to what it is written in the Scriptures in my everyday life. I’m a normal man who loves Jesus Christ and lives for Him, will defend the Christian faith at all costs no matter what people say. If you want to talk to me about the origin of the Roman Catholic Church or if the Holy Apostles made the Catholic Church after Jesus ascension–I would be happy not to debate but reason, otherwise, hold your peace. Now you continue to tell me which authority do I have? I have authority from God and don’t need to follow an oath preform by Tradition–Holy Orders.
posted July 7, 2007 at 10:14 am
Annon
Let’s see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father’s right hand?
posted July 7, 2007 at 10:43 am
It should be noted that the Holy Tradition and the Magisterium should be rooted in external Truth, otherwise its just simply made up or based on opinion. The external Truth it is rooted in should be the Word of God. However, only the Roman interpretation of the Word of God includes Holy Tradition and the Magisterium. In the end Roman Catholicism is still just another interpretation. The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.” Paul commends those who examined God’s word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.
The Word of God came before Roman Catholicism, not vice versa. Technically, Scripture should interpret Roman Catholicism. It does not clearly do this, otherwise everyone would be Catholic.
Yes, Paul says these things. What is at issue is whether the Traditions Paul taught are what Roman Catholicism teaches. The Bible is both for and against tradition. See 2 Thess 3:6 vs. Matt 15:3-6,
2 Thess 2:15 vs. Mark 7:8-9, and 1 Cor 11:2 vs. Col 2:8. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. People disagree on whether Roman Catholic tradition (veneration of Saints, Maryology, penance, etc.) transgresses the commands of God.
Authoritative statements slipped in like this feel deceptive. This is not an authoritative statement but is just another interpretation made by Roman Catholicism.
You also said elsewhere that you were studied in the early church and were 100% confident. This means nothing about whether your claims are True. I can find hundreds of other people who are as studied as you or more who believe the completely opposite way that you do and are also 100$ confident.
posted July 7, 2007 at 10:48 am
But even without that, how many millions of native americans, pagan europeans, black africans, and muslim infidels during the crusades do you think were slaughtered, deprived of their property and rights, and enslaved by christian europeans?
Okay, I have to laugh, because your ignorance is spread out in front of everybody.
The Crusades have nothing to do with Native Americans, pagan Europeans, or Black Africans. The Crusades were meant to push back the Muslims who had been continuously and brutally conquering the Christian world with their ruthless swords. They suppressed the Christians they conquered in very brutal ways. The eastern Christians begged for help from the western Christians. If it weren’t for the Crusades–in spite of their falure in some ways–you would probably be speaking Turkish or Arabic and enjoying the daily abuse of your woman. The Muslim world was determined to conquer and enslave the Christian world. (Islam means “Peace”–The “Peace” you get when everyone is forcibly converted to Islam or else enslaved.)
Anon, The extirminations of native americans, the enslavement and forced conversions of black africans, and the killing of european pagans(the witch trials) are all separate events from the crusades, but were all committed by christian europeans, I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear to you. And there was a crusade in europe against christians. The Cathars, the first crusade, it was so successful they decided to use it against the muslims. Also, Constantinople, a christian city, was sacked by crusading europeans on their way to the holy land to fight the moslims. I’m not defending islam, I think it’s one of the most intolerant and disturbing religions. But back to my original point, which you seem to have ignored, religions by far have the highest numbers. And that is irrefutable. As to your other post, why am I here? This thread started over a question, are mormons christians, that quickly became an argument over whose religion is correct. People of many different faiths have chimed in for their particular sect, arguing quit ferociously at times that they’re way is the correct way. In that debate, I think my opinion is as valid in this argument as the rest, and is deserving of being represented.
posted July 7, 2007 at 11:17 am
Anon
Was Peter the first Pope?
Know your history!
Read for me Romans 16, is Peter’s name found in the records, yes or no?
If Peter was never the first Pope, then RCC never existed.
Know your history!
In Foxe’s book of martyrs, we read that Peter was crucified upside down, this what Jesus told him in John 21:17-19.
Know your history!
Did you know that RCC borrowed some things from pagan Babylon?
Know your history!
Now for the last question:
What authority does RCC have over Christians today?
Know your history!
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Forgive me, if I offended you with my posts
Done. I wasn’t really offended. I was simply pointing out the abject hypocrisy.
–but you also were arrogant and proud.
I have no doubt that I am utterly entrenched in my pride, arrogance, egotism, and self-centeredness. But that has nothing to do with the Truth of our topic, and for the accusation to come from someone as obviously prideful and arrogant as yourself was both comical and very sad.
I don’t follow Tradition as you do, I follow Jesus Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God to help me be obedient to what it is written in the Scriptures in my everyday life.
I do not “follow” Tradition. I follow a Person–Jesus Christ. I recognize Holy Tradition and the Catholic Church as authorities established by that Person, Jesus Christ. I don’t follow a thing; I follow a Person. And that Person commands me to recognize the authority He established, so I obey out of love for Him.
I’m a normal man who loves Jesus Christ and lives for Him, will defend the Christian faith at all costs no matter what people say.
I understand your resolve and your zeal, and I laud you for them. But my criticism of you did not start from you defending Christianity. My criticism of you started when you claimed your personal godlike authority against the Mormons. If I were to enter a discussion with some Mormons with the agreed upon objective to discern which of our Churches was the One True Church, it would be an entirely different kind of discussion with an entirely different tenor to it, because I would not initiate the discussion by making the preposterous claim that I carried the full authority of God.
You are operating under the error of sola scriptura, and the error that you command God’s authority in matters of Scriptural interpretation. God is Truth, and to love God, you need to love Truth. No matter what “side” you think you are on, error is the enemy, and we must dispatch it whenever we can. If you rid yourself of this error, you will be able to love Jesus and defend Jesus in truthful and tangible ways. If you do not rid yourself of this error, you hurt the defense of Christianity because you add to error and falsehood.
So, you see, I am spiritually on your side in the defense of Christianity when I fight against your error.
If you want to talk to me about the origin of the Roman Catholic Church or if the Holy Apostles made the Catholic Church after Jesus ascension–I would be happy not to debate but reason, otherwise, hold your peace.
Well, in your posts that follow, quite frankly, it looks like you are itching for debate, not “reason.” But, with all due respect, all of your judgments are colored by your error and by your blasphemous assumption of God’s authority. I don’t see how a continued discussion of this would be profitable as long as you refuse to explicitly reject the error of sola scriptura and reject your claim to godhood and otherwise demonstrate your source of authority. I really don’t want to explore Christ’s Church with someone who would draw me away from Christ on the basis of error.
Now you continue to tell me which authority do I have? I have authority from God and don’t need to follow an oath preform by Tradition–Holy Orders.
You clearly misunderstand Holy Orders as it pertains to the Catholic Church. Becoming a priest does not give you the kind of authority you think it does. It gives them the authority to administer the Sacraments, perform the Mass, and preach, but it does not give them doctrinal authority. The doctrinal authority of Catholicism is much bigger than any given priest.
Your continued claim to command God’s authority elicits my pity. (Even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim God’s authority. They claim specific authority over specific things as commanded by God.) I fear for your soul, because the Serpent of Eden has convinced you that “you are like God” in your command of Scripture and meaning and in the knowledge of Good and Evil. Even after the glaring error you made with Proverbs that reveals you as wrong, you are still blind to the depths of self-worship into which you have fallen.
And after all is said and done–your lack of authority leaves your words fruitless and without impetus.
I will pray for you, POC777. (In fact, I already have.) I hope that you will take this issue of your self-appointed authority of God seriously and pray very hard about it. I pray that Jesus delivers you from this error.
God bless you.
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Let’s see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father’s right hand?
This is a silly question. There are books and books and books about things that happened after the Ascension of Christ.
What’s your point?
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:21 pm
This is where you are in error Anon. Your authority to make these claims is not an authority at all. It is simply Roman Catholicism’s interpretation, which is just another of the many. You are in error because you argue that someone else’s interpretation has no authority and then you proclaim your interpretation as authoritative. Your arguments are hypocritical.
You are saying “your interpretation has no authority but my interpretation has authority because my interpretation says I have authority.” Authority should come from outside your interpretation but your claimed authority comes from inside your interpretation. Rome claims to have authority because it interprets scripture in a way that gives it authority.
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Forgive me, if I offended you with my posts
Done. I wasn’t really offended. I was simply pointing out the abject hypocrisy.
–but you also were arrogant and proud.
I have no doubt that I am utterly entrenched in my pride, arrogance, egotism, and self-centeredness. But that has nothing to do with the Truth of our topic, and for the accusation to come from someone as obviously prideful and arrogant as yourself was both comical and very sad.
*Jesus is the Truth and not RCC!
I don’t follow Tradition as you do, I follow Jesus Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God to help me be obedient to what it is written in the Scriptures in my everyday life.
I do not “follow” Tradition. I follow a Person–Jesus Christ. I recognize Holy Tradition and the Catholic Church as authorities established by that Person, Jesus Christ. I don’t follow a thing; I follow a Person. And that Person commands me to recognize the authority He established, so I obey out of love for Him.
*You have absolutely no prove that Jesus Christ established RCC–RCC came about hundreds of years after the Holy Apostles not before. Jesus Christ established His church–”My church”–His Bride–every born-again–Hallejah Christian. Peter was not the first Pope of Rome, you can’t prove that he ever was. Your assumptions are without a foundation–baseless.
I’m a normal man who loves Jesus Christ and lives for Him, will defend the Christian faith at all costs no matter what people say.
I understand your resolve and your zeal, and I laud you for them. But my criticism of you did not start from you defending Christianity. My criticism of you started when you claimed your personal godlike authority against the Mormons.
*You brought up RCC, I was following the debate about Mormon. Your leaders also claim that “you” can become gods in the Cathelism–that’s not what the Bible teaches.
If I were to enter a discussion with some Mormons with the agreed upon objective to discern which of our Churches was the One True Church, it would be an entirely different kind of discussion with an entirely different tenor to it, because I would not initiate the discussion by making the preposterous claim that I carried the full authority of God.
*You accept every religion, just like every Pope has been doing for thousands of years. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life”. Jesus is the only way not RCC!
You are operating under the error of sola scriptura, and the error that you command God’s authority in matters of Scriptural interpretation. God is Truth, and to love God, you need to love Truth. No matter what “side” you think you are on, error is the enemy, and we must dispatch it whenever we can. If you rid yourself of this error, you will be able to love Jesus and defend Jesus in truthful and tangible ways. If you do not rid yourself of this error, you hurt the defense of Christianity because you add to error and falsehood.
*Roman Catholicism is built on Christianity– is not Christian–because they don’t teach from the Bible but from their own interpretations(from Tradtion) they got from many Popes in history.
So, you see, I am spiritually on your side in the defense of Christianity when I fight against your error.
*No, you’re not, otherwise, you would’ve instructed me on what I posted as you claim it was wrong.
If you want to talk to me about the origin of the Roman Catholic Church or if the Holy Apostles made the Catholic Church after Jesus ascension–I would be happy not to debate but reason, otherwise, hold your peace.
Well, in your posts that follow, quite frankly, it looks like you are itching for debate, not “reason.” But, with all due respect, all of your judgments are colored by your error and by your blasphemous assumption of God’s authority. I don’t see how a continued discussion of this would be profitable as long as you refuse to explicitly reject the error of sola scriptura and reject your claim to godhood and otherwise demonstrate your source of authority. I really don’t want to explore Christ’s Church with someone who would draw me away from Christ on the basis of error.
Now you continue to tell me which authority do I have? I have authority from God and don’t need to follow an oath preform by Tradition–Holy Orders.
You clearly misunderstand Holy Orders as it pertains to the Catholic Church. Becoming a priest does not give you the kind of authority you think it does. It gives them the authority to administer the Sacraments, perform the Mass, and preach, but it does not give them doctrinal authority. The doctrinal authority of Catholicism is much bigger than any given priest.
*That’s exactly my point–every priest or nun, gets ordained in RCC and receive their authority from the Vatican. They’re not ordained by God or has received His authority to become a priest. As a matter of fact, every Christian is a priest of God(1 Peter 2:4-5; 9-10). The priesthood of RCC and Mormonism are very similar, can we say Jesuits. This has been going on for thousands of years–if Jerome was still alive, RCC will NOT be in authority as they are today. The Vatican is “the Mother of Harlots” of Revelation 17–this church doesn’t teach what is from God but from Babylon(do research on the Two Babylons)
Your continued claim to command God’s authority elicits my pity. (Even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim God’s authority. They claim specific authority over specific things as commanded by God.) I fear for your soul, because the Serpent of Eden has convinced you that “you are like God” in your command of Scripture and meaning and in the knowledge of Good and Evil. Even after the glaring error you made with Proverbs that reveals you as wrong, you are still blind to the depths of self-worship into which you have fallen.
*No, I’m a sinner saved by grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone period. I have repented of all my sins–accepted Jesus Christ as my personal LORD and Savior into my heart and life–I have been saved, sanctified and secured–born again–freely received eternal life–have hope that one day I will go to the intermediate Heaven to be with Him. What hope do you have?
And after all is said and done–your lack of authority leaves your words fruitless and without impetus.
*You follow RCC, which is wrong and endangering your soul into Hell. Every Christian follows Jesus Christ, He knows them by name, they listen to Him as His sheep. I am His sheep.
I will pray for you, POC777. (In fact, I already have.) I hope that you will take this issue of your self-appointed authority of God seriously and pray very hard about it. I pray that Jesus delivers you from this error.
*I will also keep you in my prayers–I want no conflict between us. All I got to say is that I follow what the Bible–Jesus, the Acts and the Epistiles–I don’t follow quotes from RCC men, that are already dead.
God bless you.
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Let’s see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father’s right hand?
*Every Christian that I know here or personally, knows the answer to this question, why can’t you answer it? You claim to have authority in the Bible and if you have authority as you claim, answer the question then. Don’t back off!
This is a silly question. There are books and books and books about things that happened after the Ascension of Christ.
*No..no what do “you” think? Don’t be looking through RCC’s books–I want to know what “you” think not what “RCC” thinks. You get spoon fed by RCC, but you can even defend RCC, that is sad.
What’s your point?
*That RCC was not established by the Holy Apostles–you could read Acts 2 and notice that Peter doesn’t mention one time about the Roman Catholic Church, not once. The Christian church(Body of Christ–every Christian) was established by the Holy Apostles. RCC didn’t have to do anything by establishing the Christian church–RCC didn’t exist until hundreds of years later.
Posted by: Anon | July 7, 2007 1:09 PM
posted July 7, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I recognize Holy Tradition and the Catholic Church as authorities established by that Person, Jesus Christ. I don’t follow a thing; I follow a Person. And that Person commands me to recognize the authority He established, so I obey out of love for Him.
*Anon, hasn’t proven to us that Jesus established RCC through Peter–if they’re no evidence of Peter ever being the first Pope, Anon, is wrong and should not be heeded.
This is where you are in error Anon. Your authority to make these claims is not an authority at all. It is simply Roman Catholicism’s interpretation, which is just another of the many. You are in error because you argue that someone else’s interpretation has no authority and then you proclaim your interpretation as authoritative. Your arguments are hypocritical.
*Anon, receives interpretations from the Popes–from the Cathelism– not from the Bible as he or she should.
You are saying “your interpretation has no authority but my interpretation has authority because my interpretation says I have authority.” Authority should come from outside your interpretation but your claimed authority comes from inside your interpretation. Rome claims to have authority because it interprets scripture in a way that gives it authority.
*He or she receives “interpretations” from RCC’s interpretattions and hundreds of other interpretations–not biblcial interpretations. This kind of reminds me of the Pharisee’s–these group of men–will “add” to the Law of Moses–which will burden the Jews. That’s what I notice with RCC today–they burden Catholics with their interpretations.
Posted by: | July 7, 2007 1:21 PM
posted July 7, 2007 at 2:02 pm
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church
The Book of Acts records for us the birth of the New Testament Church, and some of the history of the first 30 years of Christianity.
In spite of great persecution, by the end of the first century A.D. Christian churches had been established in numerous cities throughout the Roman Empire. Primarily because of its location in the capital of the Roman Empire, the church in Rome slowly began gaining some prominence. When the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized the Christian faith, and ended the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313, the church in Rome gained even further prominence. As the church in Rome allied itself with the Roman government, it continued to grow in it’s authority, and influence. As early as the 3rd century the leaders of the church in Rome were claiming for themselves a supremacy over other churches throughout the Empire when it came to matters of doctrine. And by the 6th century the Church in Rome was exercising jurisdiction over the churches.
And thus, the Roman Catholic Church was born.
posted July 7, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I was raised “Mormon” and believed in Jesus as a Creator and Examplar. A couple of years ago, I believe I was born again and came to trust in his salvation. I don’t see “Mormonism” as incompatible with that experience at all. I love reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I am grateful for the gift of revelation.
I think Mormonism does not need to go seeking for the approval of the professional pulpit. We must be faithful to our bridegroom and shepherd, our savior and master, Jesus Christ who declared himself to be the Son of God. It is His approval that matters.
posted July 7, 2007 at 2:48 pm
It should be noted that the Holy Tradition and the Magisterium should be rooted in external Truth, otherwise its just simply made up or based on opinion. The external Truth it is rooted in should be the Word of God. However, only the Roman interpretation of the Word of God includes Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.
Holy Tradition and the Magisterium are rooted in the Word of God, including the unwritten Word and teaching that Paul explicitly told us to hold fast to. (The stuff you reject.) It also draws from “external” Truth that Christ entrusted to them.
But I notice two things here. First, I notice that you are far more interested in finding ways to discredit, rather than understand. Second I notice that you have done nothing to resolve the problem that you have absolutely no authority in your own personal interpretations of Scripture. What is the “external” source of truth you use for interpretation? You certainly shouldn’t be criticizing the Catholic Church when you have none yourself.
So what alternatives do we have here? A Catholic Church that could be a source of authority, or your personal interpretations that can’t. For some reason you seem to think that tearing down the authority of the Catholic Church helps your position. But it doesn’t. Your position of having no authority deserves to be completely ignored regardless of whether or not the Catholic Church has authority.
What is your authority?
(By the way, I thought you said you were quitting? Did you change your mind? And, don’t you have some homework to do?)
In the end Roman Catholicism is still just another interpretation.
In matters of Scripture, there is some truth to that. But it is still interpretation with the weight of authority behind it. But, of course, the Church’s authority goes well beyond just interpreting Scripture.
The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc.
You crack me up. You know for a fact that you have no authority whatsoever to claim your interpretation is correct, and you know for a fact that I reject your interpretation because of your lack of authority. You also know for a fact that I will have perfectly reasonable counter interpretations of every single one of these.
Yet, in spite of all that, you spout Scripture as if you could prove something. For every single point you make about all these references to Scripture, I pose, yet again, the still unanswered question: By what authority should we accept your personal interpretations?
Of course, I’m kind of enjoying these little challenges right now, so I’ll deal with the following ones in spite of the futility of it being resolved by you.
Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.” Paul commends those who examined God’s word for the test of truth.
Of course! I value Scripture, too, and in the Catholic Mass we receive the word with great eagerness. We also study the Scriptures to understand the meaning as it was intended by the inspired authors. But the verse you quote does not say or imply that all readers will have infallible interpretations. The members of the Synagogue in Beroea were *trained* in Scripture and *steeped* in the Traditional knowledge of Scripture. They would find your doctrine of “the Bible alone” to be alien and misguided.
And you still haven’t solved the problem of disagreement among the many faithful Christian churches due to the mutually exclusive interpretations they have of Scripture. If their interpretations are guaranteed to be correct–as you imply above–then why do they contradict each other? (You continually avoid this question, but the main question you continually avoid that really needs to be answered is the “By what authority?” one.)
I have no doubt that you can read your interpretation *into* Scripture. But it isn’t at all something that needs to be read *from* Acts 17:11. And, in fact, the context of the Synagogue in the presence of Paul’s guidance completely goes against that interpretation.
He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition.
Do you seriously think it is logical to say that the encouragement of one method abolishes the use of another? That’s like seeing a parent teach a child to wipe his chin and using it as proof that the same parent does not teach the child to chew with his mouth closed.
Besides, we know for a fact that Paul teaches us to hold fast to the traditions we have learned:
“Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
In case you are disturbed by the archaic translation, most modern translations say “by word of mouth,” including NIV, NASB, NAB, and NRSV. I have also seen it as “whether written or unwritten.”
So we are commanded by Paul to hold fast to oral tradition. Not only that, but as stated above, the context of reading the Scriptures in Acts 17:11 was steeped in Tradition. For that matter, language is part of Tradition.
I didn’t have to include verse 13, but I did because it highlights something very interesting. Paul refers to “our gospel,” the gospel of the Apostles, and it is in this context that he says to hold fast to both the written and unwritten word. It is clear that the Apostles considered their *gospel* to consist of oral tradition as well as the written word.
In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.
Right. But the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church is the Holy Tradition passed down from the Apostles coming from God. The Catholic Church also admonishes against “traditions of men.” (You know–like the innovations of the Reformation, including the doctrine of sola scriptura.)
That’s right. Sola scriptura is a tradition of men, so you should reject it outright.
The Word of God came before Roman Catholicism, not vice versa. Technically, Scripture should interpret Roman Catholicism. It does not clearly do this, otherwise everyone would be Catholic.
That depends on what you are talking about. The Old Testament precedes the Catholic Church. But the establishment of the Apostles was the establishment of the Catholic Church, and Peter was the first Pope. (Apostolic succession is well-established in the historic record.) Since the Apostles were established before they wrote the Gospels, it is obvious that even the separate books of the Bible did not precede the Catholic Church. But that’s not all. The actual assembly of those books is a matter of historic record, and that was done by the Catholic Church. So if you are saying the Bible came before the Catholic Church, you are displaying a complete lack of knowledge of history.
Yes, Paul says these things. What is at issue is whether the Traditions Paul taught are what Roman Catholicism teaches. The Bible is both for and against tradition. See 2 Thess 3:6 vs. Matt 15:3-6,
2 Thess 2:15 vs. Mark 7:8-9, and 1 Cor 11:2 vs. Col 2:8.
Very true. The Bible teaches against certain kinds of tradition (tradition of men), and it teaches against using tradition as a way to break the law. The Bible also commands that you hold fast to the traditions of the Apostles.
So–we know conformity to the Bible means that you will hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles, and we know that some of these are *unwritten* (NOT in the Bible). Obviously, it is the Catholic Church who holds fast to these Apostolic traditions, while you explicitly reject them if they are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
The Catholic Church also rejects the tradition of men–especially as it undermines Apostolic Tradition–while you accept traditions of men, including this invention of “the Bible alone.”
The more you try to prove your view, the more you support Catholicism.
But regardless of the end results–you still haven’t established where your authority lies. How can we possibly rely upon your interpretations without authority?
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.
The Catholic Church does not use tradition to “transgress the command of God.” The Catholic Church is in complete harmony with the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts Catholic teaching.
People disagree on whether Roman Catholic tradition (veneration of Saints, Maryology, penance, etc.) transgresses the commands of God.
People disagree with it–but they disagree with it based upon their own self-appointed authority, which should carry no credibility with anyone. If you have no authority to interpret Scripture in a way that disagrees with the Catholic Church, then you are completely unreliable and have no authority to say that they are not in harmony. You have no credibility and your interpretations should be ignored. If not–by what authority should you not be disregarded as unreliable?
I wrote: All three are a complete and harmonious authority established by Jesus Christ Himself, and preserved by His Church and His inspired writers.
You responded: Authoritative statements slipped in like this feel deceptive. This is not an authoritative statement but is just another interpretation made by Roman Catholicism.
I’m no authority, so I wasn’t pretending to make any “authoritative statement.” I was simply teaching what Catholicism actually *is*. I am speaking as a Catholic. It is what I know as a Catholic, but that doesn’t make it deceptive. It is either true, or it is not true. As a Catholic, I know that it is true. I’m certainly not forcing you to believe it.
Besides, this post that I made regarding Catholic authority was not intended to present an argument. I was simply describing Catholic authority for what it was, because there were some who posted obvious mistakes about what Catholic authority was. You may not agree with Catholic authority, but what I wrote is accurate about what Catholic authority *is*. (Though it doesn’t pretend to be complete.)
Still, I actually enjoy this opportunity to put the description in context with some of the more common objections out there.
You also said elsewhere that you were studied in the early church and were 100% confident. This means nothing about whether your claims are True.
Of course it doesn’t. Truth is always independent of what people think. But this is the Truth that I know, and I’m certainly not going to deny it or pretend it isn’t so. Besides, the statement was not intended in the slightest to “prove” anything was true. It was to show that “I’m good!” And I am.
But you and your pet tradition of man are obviously in error, and your arguments fall like ashes before the Rock of the Church.
I can find hundreds of other people who are as studied as you or more who believe the completely opposite way that you do and are also 100$ confident.
Of course, you can. As stated above, Truth is independent of what we think. Sure–it’s entirely possible that I am completely delusional. But in spite of that, I believe in something credible that can have authority, while you believe in something (your personal self-appointed authority) that is not credible and does not have authority. So, if I’m delusional–what does that say about you?
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I was raised “Mormon” and believed in Jesus as a Creator and Examplar. A couple of years ago, I believe I was born again and came to trust in his salvation. I don’t see “Mormonism” as incompatible with that experience at all. I love reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I am grateful for the gift of revelation.
My response:
Whenever something or someone, contradicts, opposes and denies, what God has already said in the Bible, is not from God.
If you answer this question, then I know the Book of Mormon, is true, if not I know it is not from God, false and shouldn’t be heeded as the Word of God:
Can you find me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?
That’s what I see in Mormonism–they teach that in order to “earn” eternal life–you must follow Mormon doctrine–baptism into Mormonism–exaltation–eternal marriage–Godhood. That’s not what the Bible teaches. Eternal life is a free gift, that must be received, believing what Jesus did on the cross 2,000 years ago(John 3:16; John 3:36; Rom 6:23). In John 14:6, we read “Jesus said to him[Thomas] “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Not through RCC, Hinudism, Buddhism, Mormonism and other religion–through Jesus Christ. Without going through Jesus first–it is impossible to go to the Father(God). And by going through Jesus Christ you must:
Recongize that you are a sinner and can’t save yourself from your sins(Rom 3:23), realize that Jesus has died in your place for your sin-debt(Rom 5:8), repent of all your sins–change the way you think and your life(Acts 3:38-39) and receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(John 1:12-13; 3:3;Rom 10:9-13 & Rev 3:20). Once you have done the four r’s, you are now a Christian, if not, you are lost in your sins and headed for Hell.
I think Mormonism does not need to go seeking for the approval of the professional pulpit. We must be faithful to our bridegroom and shepherd, our savior and master, Jesus Christ who declared himself to be the Son of God. It is His approval that matters.
My response:
*The problem is not with them following Jesus, but following LDS teachings–adding to the Bible–they are err.
Posted by: Tricia V | July 7, 2007 2:08 PM
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:08 pm
This is where you are in error Anon.
Says you, Mr. no authority about anything.
Your authority to make these claims is not an authority at all.
I have not claimed authority on one single thing in this entire forum, so what you are saying is nonsense. I have presented arguments that reveal your complete lack of authority, and I have presented some ideas and arguments that support Catholic authority. But I have claimed no authority myself. I, in fact, have none.
But that does not stop the power of my arguments and the power of logic. Nor does it change the fact that your position is completely bankrupt.
It is simply Roman Catholicism’s interpretation, which is just another of the many. You are in error because you argue that someone else’s interpretation has no authority and then you proclaim your interpretation as authoritative. Your arguments are hypocritical.
I read that with a lot of good humor because you are obviously very strenuously trying to twist things in such a way that you can get some satisfaction out of calling my arguments hypocritical. But really you simply reveal that you are either ignorant and cannot follow the arguments, or you are intentionally being deceptive so you can get your jollies with the “hypocritical” thing.
I have stated several times now that Catholic authority is contingent upon it actually being *true*. I have also come to most of these beliefs by self study, not because I was “spoon fed” anything. I didn’t turn to the Catholic Church because I would blindly accept what it teaches. I turned to the Catholic Church because I recognized its Truth. *After* I recognized it as being true, *then* I was informed by the Truths that Jesus Christ left to it. I am either wrong, or I am right–but that is the history of it. For you to say that I am hypocritical simply for stating the arguments is simply stupid.
You are saying “your interpretation has no authority but my interpretation has authority because my interpretation says I have authority.”
You obviously haven’t read what I wrote very carefully, because I didn’t write anything of the sort. Besides, you are still just trying to tear down my understanding of authority because you know for a fact that you have none. How does tearing down my authority help you? What authority do you have? Even if I have none–What authority do you have?
Authority should come from outside your interpretation but your claimed authority comes from inside your interpretation.
This makes absolutely no sense. You are going to have to actually…you know… explain it and form an argument if you want to be understood.
And you still haven’t resolved your problem with having no authority “outside” your interpretation of Scripture.
Rome claims to have authority because it interprets scripture in a way that gives it authority.
The Catholic Church claims nothing of the sort, but at this point, I don’t expect that to stop you from spreading intentional lies about it.
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:30 pm
POC777, to start, you are now using a shotgun technique to argue against something that I did not present as an argument. I presented it so that others would understand Catholic authority a little better, and not distort it in there discussion of it. It was not intended to say “this is what it is like, and you have to believe it.” But if you want to have any kind of coherent discussion at all–focus on something.
You spilled out a whole bunch of grossly incomplete historical things that have varying degrees of accuracy, and most of them include **your personal interpretations** and historic *speculation* that has nothing to do with what we actually *know*.
You make insupportable claims. You say that the Church became a different Church when it was supported by Rome, but that is completely contrary to the fact that it was headed by the same bishops of Apostolic succession before and after it was approved. You also ignore the established historic *fact* that the Chair of Peter was established in Rome. (He also established one in Antioch, but he established *his* Chair, in Rome.)
You also ignore the fact that the Apostles–MEN–ordained someone to replace Judas and carry on the authority of Christ.
You mix up random historical assertions with theology in a way that lacks even the remotest inclination towards rigorous and fair exploration of these issues.
It is a disruptive and ridiculous way to make your point. Your methods are confusing the truth, not helping the truth. Are you an ally of Truth, or not?
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said I really don’t feel it would be that fruitful to have such a discussion with you. Not only do you bring your preconceived notions to Scripture–you bring it to your (mis)management of history, as well.
It doesn’t help when you use very insulting words like “spoon fed” to describe me, as if you are so much more intelligent than me, and by the way, Anon, you simply don’t know how to think. What a bunch of *crap*. I could just as easily say that you are spoonfed by the rest of the men who claim they are gods of Scripture, and that you have no mind of your own–but I have been far more charitable than that.
And, by the way, the patronizing line “Know your history!” is also annoying. I know my history enough to know that you are being *very* irresponsible with your presentation of it.
And–if you think I am stupid and can’t think for myself–why on earth are you having a discussion with me? If I thought you were stupid and couldn’t think for yourself, I would completely ignore you.
I go back to what I said before. Instead of suffering through endless distortions and incomplete discussions about history, before we have any more discussion, *you* need to establish your original claims.
By *what* authority do you claim to carry the authority of God in interpreting Scripture. This turn to history in an all-out assault of my Church is simply a way for you to avoid the fact that you have no authority at all.
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Hey Albert. You may want to check out this website lds.org. You have a couple of facts regarding the mormons stated incorrectly.
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Let’s see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father’s right hand?
*Every Christian that I know here or personally, knows the answer to this question, why can’t you answer it? You claim to have authority in the Bible and if you have authority as you claim, answer the question then. Don’t back off!
The problem with this stupid notion is that you could write books and books about the things that happened in the first thirty yeras after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. I don’t know what you are asking about, and you expect me to read my mind. Then you get smug because I can’t read your mind.
You have taken to some tactic of senseless quizzing, instead of actually stating an argument. It is a stupid tactic, and it shows absolutely no responsible dealing with history and no decent rigor at all. It’s really quite pathetic.
I’m pretty much done here folks. Anything else these guys say will fall flat until they demonstrate their authority, and I have pretty much nailed that home. They will continue maligning my Church, but any intelligent person can see their lack of rigor and their willingness to do violence to the truth in order to state their opinions. They really do not deserve any more of my time.
Besides, that dude with the article on the Keys to the Kingdom has a lot of homework he should be doing instead of spending his time here. (Remember–by your own words–if you do not read them in order to do your best to refute them, then you are running away from facts that go against what you believe.)
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:41 pm
and you expect me to read my mind.
I obviously meant “read your mind.”
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Anon,
Your entire argument rests on the supposed authority of the Catholic Church and the Magisterium and the Holy Tradition which you claim was handed down from Christ.
This is simply not true unless you subscribe to the Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture
You are believing in a human interpretation of scripture exactly like everyone else in this discussion. That is why you are a hypocrite.
Also, you speak as if every word or verse in the Bible is open to inerpretation. It is not. There are absolute statements. “The sky is blue.” is an absolute statement. Its not open to interpretation. There are absolute statements in the Bible. There are also statement in the Bible that can only be reinterpreted (away from their plain-meaning) with strained logic. This is exactly what happens with Rome. Jesus did not refer to Peter as “the rock” nor did he give him the keys to the kingdom. I can make these claims by looking at the Greek.
First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (??????, petros) and upon this rock (?????, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress”: “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see how the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Unless you are willing to deny that words and grammar have any meaning at all, you cannot refute this. In the example used above, you cannot logically say that “actress” refers to “actor”.
The authority you claim for your assertions is based on the authority you claim the Catholic Church has. However, the Catholic Church only has this authority based on their own interpretation of scripture. I’m not claiming to have any authority at all. You can try all you want to pin this on me, but I never have once claimed this like you have claimed the authority of the Catholic Church.
You are a hypocrite because you claim no one else’s interpretation is valid because they have no authority, but you claim the Catholic Church’s authority, which is based on an interpretation (which is just as subject to flaws as everyone elses’)! This kind of circular reasoning is flawed at best.
posted July 7, 2007 at 3:59 pm
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.
posted July 7, 2007 at 4:01 pm
The credit for the above excerpt goes to an article from Catholic Answers.
posted July 7, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Would you speak German to an Italian person? No? Why would Jesus speak Aramaic to a Jew, someone who speaks Hebrew? If you claim Peter spoke Aramaic, where is your external proof?
and Anon, here is a question for you…
by what authority do you claim that the Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture is true?
posted July 7, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Hello. I am a follower of Jesus Christ; a “Mormon”, or more correctly titled, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I associate with friends and advocates of other faiths, some Christian and some other. Those claiming the title of Evangelical Christian have taught me many things of faith and devotion. I appreciate the diligence in lifestyle and the fruits of the spirit obtained by my Evangelical friends. I have read articles from Dr. Mohler prior to this posting, and I have came away with an appreciation for the sincerity in his feelings.
Dr. Mohler’s first sentence in this post was a question. “Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?” The only honest answer is “No, we Mormons are not ‘Traditional’ Christian Orthodoxy.” We may have many similar values. The yearnings of our hearts may be one with all followers of God and of his Son, Jesus Christ. And we may all file a claim to a title of “Christian”. But as Mormons, the moment Joseph Smith proclaimed a vision from heaven, having spoke with God and Jesus Christ, they having addressed him, Joseph Smith separated himself from denominations claiming orthodoxy.
We (Mormons) can not properly claim to be orthodox. We do not follow the creeds of the orthodox nor the core teachings of the orthodox. It may hurt Mormons to be excluded but let us not permit that to drive a wedge of animosity between those things we can see eye-to-eye on: Repentence, Charity, Humility, Kindness, Love of God and Love of Neighbor. We can be these things without contenting for the title of “Orthodox”.
posted July 7, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Let’s see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father’s right hand?
*Every Christian that I know here or personally, knows the answer to this question, why can’t you answer it? You claim to have authority in the Bible and if you have authority as you claim, answer the question then. Don’t back off!
The problem with this stupid notion is that you could write books and books about the things that happened in the first thirty yeras after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. I don’t know what you are asking about, and you expect me to read my mind. Then you get smug because I can’t read your mind.
My response:
Answer the question–you act so childish! Stop playing games!
You have taken to some tactic of senseless quizzing, instead of actually stating an argument. It is a stupid tactic, and it shows absolutely no responsible dealing with history and no decent rigor at all. It’s really quite pathetic.
My response:
This is how I start a conversation–by asking questions–I need answers. I need to know what “you” think, not what your Church thinks or others, you.
I’m pretty much done here folks. Anything else these guys say will fall flat until they demonstrate their authority, and I have pretty much nailed that home. They will continue maligning my Church, but any intelligent person can see their lack of rigor and their willingness to do violence to the truth in order to state their opinions. They really do not deserve any more of my time.
My response:
No have no foundation–your Church is false–if you don’t want me to expose RCC in who they really represent over the centuries–stay quiet.
Besides, that dude with the article on the Keys to the Kingdom has a lot of homework he should be doing instead of spending his time here. (Remember–by your own words–if you do not read them in order to do your best to refute them, then you are running away from facts that go against what you believe.)
My response:
The keys to the Kingdom have been given to every Christian–they are co-heirs–kings and queens–togther with Jesus Christ. So you mean to tell me that RCC, has the power to bind and loosen anyone she chooses to go to Heaven?
And you’re telling me that I’m in God’s place!
The Pope has the power with his signiture to sign an indulgence to release those in the pugatory? That’s not what the Bible says or even teaches about the pugatory.
Vicar of Christ–the Pope replacing Jesus Christ on earth–is completely false–not even Peter replaced Jesus Christ. RCC is wrong!
Posted by: Anon | July 7, 2007 3:39 PM
posted July 7, 2007 at 6:50 pm
this is also false. Petros is not the Greek term for “Peter”, it is the masculine Greek term for “rock”. Petra is the feminine. If Petra had been modified to have a maculine ending, it would read “Petros”, but it doesn’t. “Petra” was NOT modified to have a masculine ending…thats the whole point and the reason why it doesn’t refer to Peter.
posted July 7, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
*The word petra means “rock”—a pebble. Jesus is the Rock–it is His church and not Peters! Paul said that he built his foundation upon Jesus Christ not upon Tradition. He even teaches that the Apostles and the prophets were built on the foundation, as Jesus Christ the Chief cornerstone.
this is also false. Petros is not the Greek term for “Peter”, it is the masculine Greek term for “rock”. Petra is the feminine. If Petra had been modified to have a maculine ending, it would read “Petros”, but it doesn’t. “Petra” was NOT modified to have a masculine ending…thats the whole point and the reason why it doesn’t refer to Peter.
*Exactly!!!
Posted by: | July 7, 2007 6:50 PM
posted July 7, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I will start by saying I have been a Mormon for 46 years. I understand and Love the doctrines, The people, the culture, and most of all The Savior Jesus Christ who is the only begotten son of the Father.
There is a difference in christian beliefs and I wish all sincere seekers of christ well.
I would not attempt to define someone elses doctrine other than my own but if you want to know what a latter day saint believes ask one.
There is only one God that the latter day saints worship The Father, We also worship his son, Jesus Christ who was sent to earth to redeem all those who would believe on his name and keep his commandments.
If you love me keep my commandments” We know that he ( Jesus Christ ) is the only name and way in which we can be saved and return to live with the Father. So we strive to keep his commandments to show our love for him and not to work our way into heaven.
His Sacrifice and atonement and resurection is the central doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.
We believe the Father and the Son have resurected bodies of flesh and bone just as Jesus testified to Thomas in the new testament. We also believe that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead but does not have a body but is a spirit personage and his job is to testify of christ.
This is our central doctrine all others come after.
I believe as Mathew teaches that by their fruits ye shall know them. I know the fruits of the spirit that accompanies the believers and I Love what the church has done for me in my life. I am a better person all around with a better family and an understanding of my purpose in life and what my Heavenly father wants for me in the next life.
Just as I want the best for my children, I believe that we are all children of God the father and he wants us to have all that he has. In fact that is why Jesus came , so that we can become like him through the blood and resurection of christ.
Didnt christ say all that my father has will be yours. Our Goal in life is to try every day to be a better follower of christ so that we can someday become like him.
I share this testimony with you in the Name of Jesus Christ Amen.
posted July 8, 2007 at 12:59 am
DJ
Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) today and standing before God’s Heavenly pearly gates, will He allow you into Heaven, why?
posted July 8, 2007 at 1:28 am
I will start by saying I have been a Mormon for 46 years. I understand and Love the doctrines, The people, the culture, and most of all The Savior Jesus Christ who is the only begotten son of the Father.
There is a difference in Christian beliefs and I wish all sincere seekers of Christ well.
I would not attempt to define someone elses doctrine other than my own but if you want to know what a latter day saint believes ask one.
There is only one God that the latter day saints worship–the Father. We also worship his Son, Jesus Christ who was sent to earth to redeem all those who would believe on his name and keep his commandments.
My response:
According to what you said above you believe…
1. You believe one God and worship Him
2. You worship Jesus Christ
3. You believe Jesus came to redeem mankind
4. You believe in keeping His commandments
My response:
Wait, you said “to redeem all those who believe on His name”, when did you get redeemed? Even demons believe in Him and shudder–saying “I believe in Jesus Christ” is not the same as accepting Him into your heart as your personal LORD and Savior. Saying that I’m the prophet Elijah, doesn’t make me Elijah. Many profess they “know” Jesus Christ but they haven’t given their heart to Him–He wants your heart. Intellectual conversion is not the same as heart conversion!
If you love me keep my commandments” We know that he ( Jesus Christ ) is the only name and way in which we can be saved and return to live with the Father. So we strive to keep his commandments to show our love for him and not to work our way into Heaven.
My response:
Which commandments do you follow the Mormon Gospel(commandments and ordinaces) or Jesus teachings in the four gospels?
His Sacrifice and atonement and resurection is the central doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.
My response:
Okay, so you believe…
1. In Jesus sacrafice on the cross
2. In His atonement for our sin-debt
3. In the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked
Which Atonement, Mormonism’s or what Jesus did for our sins on the cross, 2,000 years ago?
We believe the Father and the Son have resurected bodies of flesh and bone just as Jesus testified to Thomas in the new testament. We also believe that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead but does not have a body but is a spirit personage and his job is to testify of christ.
My response:
Okay, once again you believe that…
1. God the Father has a resurrected body
2. God the Son has a resurrected body
3. The confession of Thomas in John 20 proves Jesus is God
4. God the Holy Spirit
5. The Trinity
6. The Spirit is a Person
7. The Spirit testifies about Jesus Christ
God does not have a body–He is Spirit(John 4:24)
This is our central doctrine all others come after.
I believe as Mathew teaches that by their fruits ye shall know them. I know the fruits of the spirit that accompanies the believers and I Love what the church has done for me in my life. I am a better person all around with a better family and an understanding of my purpose in life and what my Heavenly father wants for me in the next life.
My response:
Right, Jesus said “By there fruits you shall know them”, knowledge, won’t draw anyone closer to God–you need to have an intimate relationship with Him–and that’s only through Jesus Christ.
Just as I want the best for my children, I believe that we are all children of God the father and he wants us to have all that he has. In fact that is why Jesus came, so that we can become like Him through His blood and resurection of Him.
My response:
Has He washed away your sins already with His precious blood?
Didn’t Christ say all that my father has will be yours? Our Goal in life is to try every day to be a better follower of Christ so that we can someday become like him.
My response:
Okay, so you acually believe we will be exactly like Jesus as God in His omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent?
I share this testimony with you in the Name of Jesus Christ Amen.
My response:
Have you ever said this simple prayer: LORD Jesus, I repent of all my sin, thank you for dying on the cross for me and resurrecting on the third day. Come into my heart as my LORD and Savior, fill me with Your Holy Spirit and make me a new person, with a new heart, a new mind and a clean conscience–and write my name in the Lamb’s Book of Life and make me the person you want me to be, all the days of my life. In Jesus name, I pray Amen and Amen.
Posted by: dj | July 7, 2007 9:38 PM
posted July 8, 2007 at 1:44 am
This is an excerpt from my soon-to-be-publish book entitled “Why Do Christian Walk Away from the LORD”. I hope and pray that it will speak to each of you, God bless you!
Hell is real and nothing to joke about
The reason I am writing this is tell you about Hell for those of you who don’t have a relationship with Christ right now; I am not writing this to scare you but to encourage you to rethink where you will spend for all eternity. Satan in John 8:44 is called the father of lies, he is so tricky that he deceives you into thinking, that you could save yourself and that Hell is not real but false. He tells you that Christians don’t know what they’re talking about and are crazy. He tells you to question Hell by saying: How could a God of love send people to Hell? Actually, God does love you and doesn’t send you into Hell but yourself for refusing His love.
This is why He gave us His begotten Son to pay you’re your sin-debt in full and not go to Hell. I will give this example. Let’s say you’re are a doctor and know something is wrong with your friend, who turns out to be, a terminal disease, and you have the cure. Will you tell your friend about his condition quickly or stay quiet? You will tell him quickly, because you don’t want him to suffer pain and die a terrible death but to be cured right away. You love him. In the same way, God tells everyone the same thing, they have cancer growing inside of them, and this cancer is sin, that if it’s not cured, they will soon die in their sin which is why they will go to Hell.
However, the good news is that Jesus Christ will cure that cancer to avoid Hell, with His precious blood, if you decide to come to Him now. It’s like a get-out-of-Hell card! Hell is the opposite of Heaven. Jesus told us in Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it”. Everyday around the world, many people die without Him and go to that place because it’s easier for them to enter the “broad way” which will destroy them—Hell, than for them to enter the “narrow way”–Heaven.
The truth is that Jesus had spoken of Hell more than He ever spoken about Heaven in the four gospels. He didn’t teach us about Hell to be mean, but to give us examples by parables that describe this horrifying place for our conscience mind. That’s why before He had taught about Heaven, He taught about Hell, to escape it. If you were to see a person in a burning building, will you rescue them in an instant? Of course, why should you allow the person to turn into ashes, knowing you could save them from the flames?
That’s what Jesus did. Jesus spoke more of Hell than anybody on this earth today who teaches and preaches on the subject. Many pastors don’t teach or preach on Hell, because they will offend others and afraid of losing numbers(no more tithes and offerings). But in Matthew 10:18, He teaches us about the fear of God, when He said “And don’t be fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”. Did God purposely throw both the body and soul, because He wanted to?
No, it was because of sin, He can’t stand it so He turns away because He is holy. Sin is what put Jesus Christ on the cross, our sins crucified Him, and we crucified Him because of our sins. In the future judgment, all those who didn’t place their faith and trust on Jesus Christ for their salvation, will suffer for eternity in this place of horror, for their sins, which God’s wrath will be upon them, in a place called the lake of fire. That’s why we read in John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”. So if you don’t believe in the Son, Jesus Christ, God’s wrath abides on you, right now at this moment.
But you might say “I do believe in Him” but James tell us “even demons believe in Him and tremble”. Believing doesn’t mean “Okay I believe in Jesus Christ” and then live your life as you want to, no, is repenting of all your sins and changing your entire life—you turn from sin and turn to God. Now you live for God and no longer live for yourself. Repenting means to change the way you think and act. Acts 2:38-39 tells us “Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call”.
He didn’t make Hell for you or me and doesn’t want anybody to go to this place and suffer for their sins, to be separated from Him for all eternity but to deliver them from that place. Imagine being separated from God forever? Not only Him but from your family and friends? We read in Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand. ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels’. He made Hell for Satan and his angels at first, because of they sinned against Him, but as we can see in the verse, it says “you cursed”, how did they get cursed? Sin! Who they are? None other than who refused the gift of salvation from Jesus Christ. If you are refusing His gift, then you are cursed. He wants everyone who hasn’t come to Him; to realize that He loves them and doesn’t have a place in His heart for them to be thrown into the lake of fire, where we read “Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” I give you this example, say there’s a person who is the CEO of a company and has an invitation to a dinner in an expensive restaurant and is the speaker for the evening. When he enters the restaurant, he meets the matire’d; he asks him “I have a reservation because I called in yesterday to book it”. The man says “Wait”. He looks for his name, putting his finger and looking for it, but no name. He turns page after page still no name. He says “I’m sorry sir but your name doesn’t appear anywhere”.
The boss responds “But I booked a reservation yesterday and I’m the CEO of a company and the speaker for the evening”. He says “It doesn’t matter who you are or what you do if your name isn’t found in the here, I won’t let you enter”. If you’re not a Christian now, your name will not be found in the book of life and like the CEO who couldn’t go through the matire’d, you will not enter Heaven and will be cast into the lake of fire, on Judgment Day. Now is the time for you to come and realize that you need Jesus Christ now and surrender everything to Him, at this moment before it’s too late before you find yourself in Hell in torments. If you accept Jesus Christ today into your heart, your name will be written in the Lamb’s book of life, permanently.
I don’t know why you’re reading this book now, it might be that God is speaking to you and doesn’t want you to go to Hell but to Heaven when you die. I don’t want you to go to Hell, that’s why I’m wrote this, because I love you. I don’t know why you haven’t gotten saved, but now is the time, “Now is the day of salvation” it might be pride keeping you from allowing God to change you to give you new life or you might be saying: “I’m alright and don’t need Jesus Christ right now, I’m fine” “My religion will save me” “I’m a good person and when I die I will go to Heaven”. You have been trying all those years, to attain love, joy and peace, but still can’t. The truth is nobody in this world is good enough to enter Heaven, no amount of good works will merit you into Heaven, only God is good; after all, there will be good people in Hell. That’s why Jesus died for you and me, to not go to Hell.
If you want to come into a relationship with Him now and for sure you will go to Heaven when you die then repeat this prayer after me: Lord Jesus, I repent of all my sins, I ask You to forgive me of all my sins and I thank you for dying now the cross for me and resurrecting on the third day, now I’m asking to come into my life, as Lord and Savior, filled with Your Holy Spirit, and make me a brand new person, with a new heart, new mind and a clean conscience and write my name in the Lamb’s book of life, make me the person you want me to be, all the days of my life, in Jesus name I pray. Amen and Amen. Welcome to the family! You have received Jesus Christ and now what, we’ll in order to grow in your relationship with Him you must: Find a church in your area where they teach God’s Word, pray everyday, witness to others what Jesus has done for you and if you have a bible right now; start reading the book of John. Enjoy the rest of this book!
posted July 8, 2007 at 1:59 am
WHOA!! STOP!!! this is SO DEPRESSING!!!
If all who consider themselves committed Christians, consecrated followers of Christ, will STOP this ridiculous and FUTILE bickering, and instead go forth and DO the Commands of Christ, viz, Matthew 10:7-8
“And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.”
AND
Luke 10:27 …Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” ,
you will PROVE by your ACTIONS that you are indeed a Christian.
In short, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.[Matt 5:16]
Let all who consider themselves dedicated followers of Jesus Christ be totally committed to obeying these directions, spend their energy in these ways, and what a better world we will have!
Deuteronomy 6:24-26 to all,
Verndigger
posted July 8, 2007 at 2:56 am
?????? ?? ??ì ????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ???????, ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ???, ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ????????? ??????.
posted July 8, 2007 at 3:33 am
I personally think that Jesus did a pretty ingenious thing. Instead of just symbolically saying Simon was the rock, he renamed him. It was a name that stuck. Peter is the anglicized version of the Greek for rock, and Cephas is the Aramaic for rock. Both of those names became the names that were used to refer to Simon for the rest of his life, and they appear in the Bible in many places.
So, while a whole bunch of folks with differing opinions hash out what the Greek really says, the average Joe can look right past the fray and see the man with the name that Jesus gave him. If the name was intended to be for his confession, why did it stick to him?
It’s a happy circumstance where even those of us who are not scholars can take a step back, open our eyes and see the obvious. After that, the debators can be ignored.
My previous comment says a lot, too.
posted July 8, 2007 at 10:08 am
WHOA!! STOP!!! this is SO DEPRESSING!!!
*Why are you so depressed?
If all who consider themselves committed Christians, consecrated followers of Christ, will STOP this ridiculous and FUTILE bickering, and instead go forth and DO the Commands of Christ, viz, Matthew 10:7-8
*Relax!
“And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.”
*Jesus brought the kingdom to men–He was the King!
And said:
1. Heal the sick
2. Cleanse the lepers
3. Raise the dead
4. Cast out devils
1. Heal the sick. According to James 5:14-15, we could anoint the sick with oil(myrth and olive oil mixed together) and pray over them to be healed. Peter healed the man who couldn’t walk(Acts 3:1-10). In 1 Cor 12:9, we are told, the Spirit gives the Christian the “gift of healings”. The Spirit operates this gift, not the Christian–and can’t heal when they choose.
2. Cleanse the lepers. I see instruction in Leviticus 13-14 about cleansing lepers. Jesus cleanse a leper in Mark 1:40-45. Not one example could be found in the Book of Acts and the Epistles don’t gives us instructions to “cleanse the lepers”.
3. Raise the dead. There are examples in the book of Acts, when Peter resurrected Dorcas(Acts 9:36-43) and when Paul resurrected Eutychus(Acts 20:7-12). There is no instruction in the Epistles for “raising the dead.”
4. Cast out devils. The Book of Acts has those examples. Jesus casted demons from the PCP man in Mark 5:1-20. An example, is when Paul casted out the demon from the woman fortune teller(Acts 16:16-18). I see no instruction in the Epistles, however, many pastors today drive out demons from people. Many could discern whether or not there are demons in people and by faith will drive them out, this is called “to another discerning of spirits” in 1 Cor 12:10!
Jesus gave this command to the Apostles(Mark 16:17-18). These are the marks of an Apostle!
AND
Luke 10:27 …Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” ,
My response:
Okay, first there must be a verticle line before a horizontal line.
1.How could we love the LORD with all thy heart?
2.How could we love the LORD with all thy soul?
3.How could we love the LORD with all thy strength?
4.How could we love the LORD with all thy mind?
5.And how could we love thy neighbor as thyself?
you will PROVE by your ACTIONS that you are indeed a Christian.
My response:
In short, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.[Matt 5:16]
Jesus said…
1. Our light needs to shine
2. Our good works will be notice
3. The Father is glofied
Quick quiz:
How does our light shine, men see our good works and then the Father is glorified?
This reminds me of the gospel song:
This little light of mine, I’m goin’ to let it shine(2x)
Let shine(3x) Oh yeah.
Let all who consider themselves dedicated followers of Jesus Christ be totally committed to obeying these directions, spend their energy in these ways, and what a better world we will have!
Deuteronomy 6:24-26 to all,
My response:
And the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments[about 612] before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.”
First of all what is a statue?
Verndigger
Posted by: Verndigger | July 8, 2007 1:59 AM
posted July 9, 2007 at 2:54 am
Let me simplify this whole thing for everybody (I really don’t see how this issue got so terribly complicated).
Summary of round one of Dr. Mohler’s arguments: “The doctrines of Mormonism were established by God, angels, and prophets while Christian Orthodoxy was established by committee.”
Yep, he’s right. But that is not the topic of this debate. The topic is: “Are Mormon’s Christian?”
I hereby testify to Dr. Mohler, to Mr. Card, to the readers of this blog and to the world that Jesus Christ is my savior and that only by Him and through Him can men and women be saved. He lived, taught, performed miracles and later died for our sins. He was resurrected and lives today. His story is in the New Testament of the Holy Bible and I urge everyone to read the Bible and follow its teachings. Jesus is my exemplar and I believe that the quest of anyone professing true discipleship is to align their lives to become One with Him. I urge all to seek out and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I believe in Christ and strive to live by His teachings. This makes me a Christian.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This makes me a Mormon.
Let us look at what Webster says (Webster is widely recognized as an authority on English words like “Christian” by most of the English speaking world). http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
“1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2: the hero in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress”
So according to this, at least one of the correct, recognized definitions of the word “Christian” is broad enough to include me, a Mormon.
posted July 9, 2007 at 11:36 am
Let us look at what Webster says (Webster is widely recognized as an authority on English words like “Christian” by most of the English speaking world). http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
Mr. Housley,
You way overestimate what the makers of the dictionaries themselves claim it to be.
No dictionary anywhere claims to capture the essence and nature of something by virture of the extremely limited and incomplete approximations they call “definitions.” When a “definition” is attempted to better encapsulate the meaning of something in the way intended in this conversation, it attempts to do far more.
For example, is there anyone reading who really believes that this:
Main Entry: quantum mechanics
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
: a theory of matter that is based on the concept of the possession of wave properties by elementary particles, that affords a mathematical interpretation of the structure and interactions of matter on the basis of these properties, and that incorporates within it quantum theory and the uncertainty principle — called also wave mechanics
Adequately defines what quantum mechanics is? Can we use this cursory definition in every case to confirm to a student that he is dabbling in QED or has gone off the map?
I just picked something at random. You can find thousands of examples that illustrate the fallacy of using dictionaries the way you would like to.
posted July 9, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Do you have a translation for this Interloper? I suspect thats why no one is responding.
posted July 9, 2007 at 5:52 pm
I expected a reply from POC777 and from the dude who posted the article titled “Robert Sungenis and evpi. tau,th|” from the website http://www.aomin.org. Here’s his time stamp: “Posted by: | July 6, 2007 12:57 PM”
They should certainly have something to say about it.
posted July 9, 2007 at 8:20 pm
If they do not answer, I guess the point is proved.
posted July 9, 2007 at 10:48 pm
silly interloper
Na mayroon akong ibang mga tupa na hindi sa kawang ito; sila ay dapat ko ring dalhin, at kanilang diringgin ang aking tinig; at magkakaroon ng isang kawan, at isang pastol.
At katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo, na kayo yaong aking sinabi: Mayroon akong ibang mga tupa na hindi sa kawang ito; sila ay dapat ko ring dalhin, at kanilang diringgin ang aking tinig; at magkakaroon ng isang kawan, at isang pastol.
posted July 9, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I never claimed to be able to read Greek. The Greek I discussed had a translation provided. Throwing up some Greek and not providing any translation or any reason for doing so proves no point at all.
Maybe I should post a sentence in Swahili and then step back and say my point is proved.
posted July 9, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Let me simplify this whole thing for everybody (I really don’t see how this issue got so terribly complicated).
Summary of round one of Dr. Mohler’s arguments: “The doctrines of Mormonism were established by God, angels, and prophets while Christian Orthodoxy was established by committee.”
Yep, he’s right. But that is not the topic of this debate. The topic is: “Are Mormon’s Christian?”
I hereby testify to Dr. Mohler, to Mr. Card, to the readers of this blog and to the world that Jesus Christ is my savior and that only by Him and through Him can men and women be saved. He lived, taught, performed miracles and later died for our sins. He was resurrected and lives today. His story is in the New Testament of the Holy Bible and I urge everyone to read the Bible and follow its teachings. Jesus is my exemplar and I believe that the quest of anyone professing true discipleship is to align their lives to become One with Him. I urge all to seek out and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I believe in Christ and strive to live by His teachings. This makes me a Christian.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This makes me a Mormon.
*You can’t serve two masters, you either deny Christianity or Mormonism. You can’t be both Christian and Mormon at the same time–that will contradict, oppose and deny: God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the Bible. You need to decide!
Let us look at what Webster says (Webster is widely recognized as an authority on English words like “Christian” by most of the English speaking world). http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
“1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961 2: the hero in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress”
So according to this, at least one of the correct, recognized definitions of the word “Christian” is broad enough to include me, a Mormon.
*Baptism into Mormonism doesn’t mean you’re Christian–heart conversion is what makes you a Christain!
*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and standing before God’s Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, Heaven, why?
posted July 10, 2007 at 12:02 am
POC777:*You can’t serve two masters, you either deny Christianity or Mormonism.
GB:That is a logical fallacy. They are not mutually exclusive.
POC777:*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and standing before God’s Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, Heaven, why?
GB:I know that there is a God, and I am not Him. He will be the Judge in deciding who gets into heaven and not you or me. However, based on your definition of salvation I would slide right in, no questions asked.
posted July 10, 2007 at 1:04 am
Silly was audacious enough to allege: “If they do not answer, I guess the point is proved.”
The target of his insane allegation gave answer: “I never claimed to be able to read Greek. The Greek I discussed had a translation provided. Throwing up some Greek and not providing any translation or any reason for doing so proves no point at all.”
Aah, but if you know the point at hand, you find that it does prove something.
You and POC777 (though you especially) made several declarations regarding Greek scholarship, and you ridiculed one of the participants for having the audacity to say there were other opinions on the matter. You declared your superiority in understanding Greek grammar. You evoked the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language as evidence to support your view. You mocked a participant for not understanding the “universal facts” of the matter. You mocked the Mormons for not understanding before they believe. You declared your superiority in evaluating and selecting scholarship. You condemned a participant as a hypocrite for rejecting your superiority.
You, in front of everyone participating, professed to have complete superiority over our opinions of the translation, you claimed better insight of the Greek texts, and you invoke the so-called universal rules and uses of Koine Greek…
…and, yet, you cannot even translate one simple line of New Testament Greek.
Now, in front of everyone participating, you have revealed yourself to be a poser and a sham. You have revealed yourself as having been “spoon fed” an opinion that you have accepted without the slightest clue if it is valid or not.
“Maybe I should post a sentence in Swahili and then step back and say my point is proved.”
That would be efficacious in embarrassing me….(gasp!)….IF I had pretended to be any kind of expert on Swahili scholarship. But I didn’t.
Cheers,
Silly
posted July 10, 2007 at 1:10 am
GB,
I sure am glad I didn’t make any claims about the language you present to us. Now that the real purpose for it was revealed, I’ll return your jab with a wink.
Hamlet handed them a flute, but they cannot play it.
Rosencranz and Gilderstern are dead.
Cheers,
Silly
posted July 10, 2007 at 9:57 am
Silly was audacious enough to allege: “If they do not answer, I guess the point is proved.”
The target of his insane allegation gave answer: “I never claimed to be able to read Greek. The Greek I discussed had a translation provided. Throwing up some Greek and not providing any translation or any reason for doing so proves no point at all.”
My response:
I study Greek, my friend, and not as you. But I would be glad to learn from you–I love learning.
Aah, but if you know the point at hand, you find that it does prove something.
You and POC777 (though you especially) made several declarations regarding Greek scholarship, and you ridiculed one of the participants for having the audacity to say there were other opinions on the matter.
My response:
1.I’m not a New Testament Greek scholar.
2.If I ridiculed one of the participants, forgive me.
3.I don’t agree with every opinion, I search the Scriptures.
You declared your superiority in understanding Greek grammar. You evoked the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language as evidence to support your view. You mocked a participant for not understanding the “universal facts” of the matter. You mocked the Mormons for not understanding before they believe. You declared your superiority in evaluating and selecting scholarship. You condemned a participant as a hypocrite for rejecting your superiority.
My response:
1. I don’t declare my superiority in understanding Greek grammar(I only know “words”).
2. I didn’t even know I “envoked the rules and used Koine Greek language as evidence to support your view.”
3. If I mocked a participant those weren’t my intentions.
4. If I indeed mocked Mormons that wasn’t my message.
5. I didn’t declare “my superiority” in evaluting and selecting scholarship.
6. I didn’t condemn no participant.
You, in front of everyone participating, professed to have complete superiority over our opinions of the translation, you claimed better insight of the Greek texts, and you invoke the so-called universal rules and uses of Koine Greek…
…and, yet, you cannot even translate one simple line of New Testament Greek.
My response:
1. I’m a student of New Testament Greek
2. I’m not a scholar but studying
3. I’m only a normal Christian man who loves the LORD
Now, in front of everyone participating, you have revealed yourself to be a poser and a sham. You have revealed yourself as having been “spoon fed” an opinion that you have accepted without the slightest clue if it is valid or not.
My response:
If you feel that way about me, no problem. If I do get “spoon fed” the why do I read and study the Bible very much, without a pastor, teacher or even a scholar at my side? This is the LORD’s wisdom! However, if you’re going to tell me “Mormonism is Christian” then we will “reason” from the Bible and the BOM; book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse.
“Maybe I should post a sentence in Swahili and then step back and say my point is proved.”
That would be efficacious in embarrassing me….(gasp!)….IF I had pretended to be any kind of expert on Swahili scholarship. But I didn’t.
My response:
Don’t let your pride take over–have humility:
“For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself”
Cheers,
Silly
Posted by: Silly Interloper | July 10, 2007 1:04 AM
posted July 10, 2007 at 10:09 am
POC777:*You can’t serve two masters, you either deny Christianity or Mormonism.
GB:That is a logical fallacy. They are not mutually exclusive.
My response:
Which one will you choose? Don’t give to me intelligent response, it is offensive to me, answer the question.
POC777:*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and standing before God’s Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, Heaven, why?
GB:I know that there is a God, and I am not Him. He will be the Judge in deciding who gets into heaven and not you or me. However, based on your definition of salvation I would slide right in, no questions asked.
My response:
1. Everyone knows that God exists–even Satan and his angels(demons).
2. We are not God–God is God–thank you very much.
3. He is the Judge of both the righteous and the wicked through Jesus Christ.
4. Salvation is a gift from Him–we can’t earn it through personal merits.
5. No questions asked, no problem.
My response:
So according to your statement made:
1. Have you recognized that you’re a sinner and can’t save yourself from your sin-debt in full?
2. Have you realized that Jesus Christ has died in your place for your sin-debt in full?
3. Have you repented of all your sins–has a transformation taken place?
4. Have you received Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior into your heart?
Answer yes or no to this questions, I need to know!
Posted by: GB | July 10, 2007 12:02 AM
posted July 10, 2007 at 10:33 am
POC:Which one will you choose? Don’t give to me intelligent response, it is offensive to me, answer the question.
GB:So you want gibberish instead of an “intelligent response”? Nah I will stick with my “intelligent response”.
I choose both, they are not mutually exclusive. If you don’t like that answer? Tough!! Get over it!!
POC:1. Have you recognized that you’re a sinner and can’t save yourself from your sin-debt in full?
2. Have you realized that Jesus Christ has died in your place for your sin-debt in full?
3. Have you repented of all your sins–has a transformation taken place?
4. Have you received Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior into your heart?
Answer yes or no to this questions, I need to know!
GB:As I said before “However, based on your definition of salvation I would slide right in, no questions asked.”
Answers
1. yes, 2. yes, 3. yes, 4. yes
posted July 10, 2007 at 10:42 am
False. I never “ridiculed” anyone. You have proven yourself a liar. I do not doubt that some Greek is open to slight differences in interpretation. However, you seem to forget that some things are NOT open to interpretation. “The sky is blue.” This sentence is not open to any different interpretation. It means what it says. The only way you may interpret it differently is by adding or changing meanings of words.
False. I never declared myself a Greek scholar. I never stated that I read Greek. I provided Koine Greek and its accompanying translation. I never claimed I translated it. I did not say “here is my translation of this Greek”. If my tone appeared mocking in any way, I assure you it was in response to said participants mocking tone. I, however, fully admit that responding to mocking with mocking is wrong on my part.
In regards to the universal facts of language…yes, there are universal rules contained in language. Take the sentence “I called Jim to tell him about my car.” Rules allow us to know that “him” refers to “Jim” and “my” refers to “I”. These associations are NOT open to interpretation. You cannot change “him” from referring to “Jim” and the same can be said of “I” and “my”.
If I did this, then I apologize.
This is a blatant falsehood. Please post my words declaring “superiority in evaluating and selecting scholarship”. I also never declared participant as a hypocrite for rejecting my superiority. I said participant was a hypocrite for claiming everyone else’s interpretations were invalid because of lack of authority, but then claiming his own interpretation as valid because of authority given to him by his interpretation.
You cannot say “I have authority because I interpret authority.” THAT IS NOT AUTHORITY. That is your interpretation giving you authority. When you use this “authority” to condemn everyone else’s interpretation as having no authority, you are a hypocrite.
I did not “condemned a participant as a hypocrite for rejecting your superiority”. The hypocrisy had nothing at all to do with “rejecting” my “superiority”. You should really get your facts straight before accusing someone with blatant falsehoods. It destroys your credibility.
Please post my profession “to have complete superiority over our opinions of the translation”. I never claimed to have better insight. You are completely confused. Here is an example:
Spanish: “Me llamo Jane.”
English translation: “My name is Jane”
Does that mean I am claiming to have better insight into the Spanish language? That is ridiculous. Its a literal translation of a sentence. Can this sentence be given any meaningful different interpretation? Does “my” really refer to “name”? Is “Jane” really the “name”? Please show me how language can’t have absolutes.
Please post where I claimed to be able to translate Koine Greek. I posted information from scholarly sources. I never said “here is my translation of the Greek”.
I however would be justified in assuming you can translate Greek since you posted Greek with no translation and are mocking posters for not being able to translate it. However, I would be highly shocked if you were not being hypocritical in this.
I will let my arguments put forth speak for themselves instead of sinking to this level of personal attack.
posted July 10, 2007 at 10:46 am
my interpretation is valid because my interpretation says its valid.
anyone see any flaws in this?
posted July 10, 2007 at 11:48 am
to further develop my thoughts on the Greek I discussed earlier:
ponder the difference between these two sentences:
“This sentence means…”
“This sentence is…”
The first, is referring to interpretation and the second is not. The second is simply referring to existence…it is simply observing the contents of the sentence as it physically appears.
The Greek words “Petros” and “Petra” I referred to in my posts above were not interpretations. They are simply the words that appear in the verse as it was written in the Koine Greek language, the language of the New Testament. The English translation of these words is “rock”. That is also not an interpretation. It is simply a translation from one language to another.
However “Petros” is the masculine form of the word “rock” and “Petra” is the feminine form. In some languages, nouns are masculine and feminine. Koine Geek, Spanish, and Italian are a few languages that do this. When languages have this aspect, nouns used to refer to something must match the gender of the object they refer to. An analagous example in English would be “she” and “he”. It is understood that “she” refers to something feminine, and “he” to something masculine.
So, when Peter is called “Petros” he is called the masculine form of “rock”. If a noun is going to be used to refer to Peter, it should be in the masculine form to match the gender of “Petros”. This is not what happens. “Petra” is used…the feminine form of “rock”. Therefore the most logical conclusion is that “Petra” did not refer to “Petros”. An English example would be saying that “she” logically does not refer to “him” within a sentence, unless we are talking about someone changing gender.
All of this is NOT an interpretation. It is simply an observation of text written in Koine Greek translated to English that follows the language rules of Koine Greek. There is no personal interpretation in these observations.
This falls under the “This sentence is…” category. Words and sentences logically flow from the “This sentence is…” category into the “This sentence means…”. You have to know what something is before you can know what it means. If I presented you with an unknown word and said “here is the word furhsogfbns, tell me what it means”, you would first have to figure out what the word is before you know what it means. Is it a noun? a pronoun? an adjective? a name? what is it?
posted July 10, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Why don’t we examine what Brigham Young wrote regarding blacks. (Brigham Young was a President of the LDS Church, someone who receives revelations according to Mormons.)
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” – Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses,” Vol. 7, Pages 290 & 291
Plenty more of this in the Book of Mormon, folks.
posted July 10, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Joe
I don’t have the time to argue, your remarks don’t mean anything to me, this discussion is over. Good day sir!
posted July 10, 2007 at 9:51 pm
There’s no point to arguing with a Mormon because Truth is something that escapes them.
posted July 11, 2007 at 1:16 am
Silly Interloper,
My point was not to say that the Webster Dictionary can or does thoroughly describe any particular term, but that it authoritatively defines the English language, as it is commonly and acceptably used by those who speak and hear it. Most people, when they hear the word “Christian”, don’t think about the Nicene Creed (that’s listed separately at http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nicene%20Creed). They think, “Oh, that means people who believe in Jesus Christ.”
Everyone who says that Mormons are not Christians are fully aware of the above fact. If they are also aware that Mormons in fact claim a very deeply held belief in Jesus Christ, then they are fully aware that they are encouraging a deception. My (Mormon) mother taught me that knowingly allowing someone to come to a false assumption from something that I say is the same thing as a telling a lie.
posted July 11, 2007 at 1:30 am
I am fascinated by the numerous and passionate arguments which have been posted here to make the case that Mormons are not Christians. Since Mormons unequivocally say they are Christians and many non-Mormons categorically say they are not, it is evident that the heart of the matter has to do with the definition of the term Christian.
As pointed out by Mr. Card, Dr. Mohler referenced “traditional Christian orthodoxy” to provide his own definition. This is ironic since Dr. Mohler belongs to a denomination which, along with all other protestant denominations, was once labeled as heretical itself relative to “traditional Christian orthodoxy”. It seems that “traditional” is not quite so traditional after all.
Maybe Dr. Mohler feels that, just like my new Windows Vista operating system, his upgraded version of “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is an improvement over previous versions. In other words, the more time that passes since Christ’s earthly ministry the more accurate the interpretation of His teachings. Is that how it works?
An earlier post referenced an article which piqued my interest because rather than analyzing Mormon theology relative to some recent and shifting definition of Christianity, it examines the theology relative to beliefs held by first century Christians. The article is a bit lengthy for posting here but I am doing so anyway because it is thought-provoking and well worth the reading for those who agree with the premise as well as those who do not.
Comparing LDS Beliefs With First–Century Christianity
by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks
Since the inception of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many critics have denied that it is Christian. Surprisingly, the basis for the claim has little to do with the standard definition of Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. Rather, it has to do with Latter-day Saint doctrines that some feel are alien to “traditional Christianity,” where “traditional Christianity” means that body of beliefs held by most present-day Christian churches. The argument essentially goes that if the LDS church believes in certain doctrines not believed in by most present-day Christian churches, then the LDS church cannot be Christian.
The problem with this argument is that the major doctrines under attack are amazingly similar to Christian beliefs held during the New Testament period and the generations immediately following.
Does the New Testament define Christianity?
The Gospels lack any explicit treatment of the word Christian. Indeed, the word appears only three times in the New Testament, and never from the mouth of Christ himself. The word Christianity is entirely absent from the New Testament.
Acts 11:26 tells us that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Here, the passive construction “were called Christians” suggests that the term was first used not by Christians, but by non-Christians. (Similarly, the names Yankee and Mormon were first used by outsiders.)
The term was probably modeled on such words as Herodian and Caesarian, already in circulation at that time, and meant nothing more complicated than Christ’s people or, perhaps, partisans of Christ. Note that the Christian congregation at Antioch represented a wide range of backgrounds, including Jews and non-Jews. These believers displayed the whole spectrum of attitudes toward the Jewish law—from continued adherence to the traditions of Judaism to rejection of all things Jewish.
The next mention of the term Christian is in Acts 26:28, where Agrippa makes his famous reply to Paul: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” The Apostle had related to Agrippa and Festus the story of his conversion. The doctrinal content of Paul’s speech is simple and straightforward: Paul bears witness that Jesus had been foretold by the Jewish prophets, that he suffered and rose from the dead, and that forgiveness may be obtained through him. Paul described Christ’s mission as summoning people to “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (Acts 26:20.) The scriptural account gives no indication that Paul had to correct Agrippa’s use of the word Christian to describe one who believes in these basic doctrines.
First Peter 4:16 is the last instance of the word’s appearance in the New Testament. This verse is virtually without doctrinal definition, merely assuring the believer that he need not be ashamed if he suffer as a “Christian.” Even here, the term may be one that persecuting outsiders were using. It may have derived from current Roman, that is, non-Christian, legal usage.
In each of these instances, the term appears to originate from someone outside the community of believers themselves. In neither of the two passages from Acts does Paul use the word himself; it is non-Christians who use it. Where the term is used, the stated and implied beliefs of the Christians are far different from the present-day beliefs used to deny that Latter-day Saints are Christians, as can be clearly shown.
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints reject the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, they are not Christians?
The Church’s first Article of Faith is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” This is a straightforward statement of belief that there are three members in the Godhead. However, Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead. Consequently, it is highly questionable whether these creeds reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.
“The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity,” notes J. R. Durnmelow, “was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete until the fifth century, or maybe even later.”1 As Bill Forrest remarks, “To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to being Christian, is to acknowledge that for centuries after the New Testament was completed thousands of Jesus’ followers were in fact not really ‘Christian.’”2 Certainly the revelatory manner by which Joseph Smith learned of the doctrine of the Godhead pierces through the centuries-old debate on the subject.
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints believe that human beings can eventually become like God, they are not Christian?
As even a cursory glance at early Christian thought reveals, the idea that man might become as God—known in Greek as theosis or theopoiesis —may be found virtually everywhere, from the New Testament through the writings of the first four centuries.3 Church members take seriously such passages as Psalm 82:6, John 10:33–36, and Philippians 2:5–6, in which a plurality of gods and the idea of becoming like God are mentioned.
The notion of theosis is characteristic of church fathers Irenaeus (second century A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (third century A.D.), and Athanasius (fourth century A.D.). Indeed, so pervasive was the doctrine in the fourth century that Athanasius’s archenemies, the Arians, also held the belief and the Origenist monks at Jerusalem heatedly debated “whether all men would finally become like Christ or whether Christ was really a different creature.”4
According to an ancient formula, “God became man that man might become God.” Early Christians “were invited to ‘study’ to become gods” (note the plural).5
Though the idea of human deification waned in the Western church in the Middle Ages, it remained very much alive in the Eastern Orthodox faith, which includes such Christian sects today as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches.6 Jaroslav Pelikan notes, “The chief idea of St. Maximus, as of all Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification.”7
Is the subject of deification truly a closed question? After all, echoes of man becoming like God are still found in the work of later and modem writers in the West. For instance, C. S. Lewis’s writings are full of the language of human deification.8 Even Martin Luther was capable of speaking of the “deification of human nature,” although in what sense it is not clear.9
Related to the claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because of their belief in deification is the assertion that if they hold to some kind of belief in deification then it must be that Church members do not view Jesus as uniquely divine. Such an assertion is totally erroneous. The phrase “Only Begotten Son” occurs with its variants at least ten times in the Book of Mormon, fourteen times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and nineteen times in the Pearl of Great Price. Basic to Latter-day Saint theology is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh.
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints practice baptism for the dead, they are not Christian?
The argument that Latter-day Saints cannot be Christians because they practice baptism for the dead presumes that it has been definitely established that 1 Corinthians 15:29 has nothing to do with an early Christian practice of baptism for the dead. The argument ignores the fact that such second-century groups as the Montanists and Marcionites—who are invariably referred to as Christians—practiced a similar rite. The practice was condemned in A.D. 393 by the Council of Hippo, which certainly implies that it was still a vital issue.10 As Hugh Nibley has shown in great detail, many of the Church Fathers understood this verse literally, even when they did not always know what to make of it.11
Mormon temple ritual in general is another source of controversy, largely because many think that the reticence to talk about it is not Christian. But the New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias has shown that “the desire to keep the most sacred things from profanation”—a concern shared by the Latter-day Saints—is widely found in the New Testament and in the early Christian community.12
The second-century church father Ignatius of Antioch was known to have held “secret” doctrines. The historian Tertullian (second century A.D.) even takes the heretics to task because they provide access to their services to everyone without distinction. As a result, the demeanor of these heretics becomes frivolous, merely human, without seriousness and without authority.13
The pagan critic Celsus (second century A.D.) probably referred to Christianity as a “secret system of belief” because access to the various ordinances of the church—baptism and the sacrament—was available only to the initiated. In his response to Celsus, Origen (third century A.D.) readily admitted that many practices and doctrines were not available to everyone, but he argues that this was not unique to Christianity.14 As late as the fourth century, some groups were making efforts to return to an earlier Christian tradition of preserving certain doctrines and practices for the initiated only.15
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints do not accept the Bible as their sole authority in faith and doctrine, they are not Christians?
Latter-day Saints accept the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as scriptural, in addition to the Bible. But the whole question of canon—which writings are sacred, inspired, and binding on disciples—has always been a complicated one in the history of traditional Christianity.
In the earliest period of the Christian church, it is difficult to see a distinction being made between canonical writings and some books not in the present Protestant canon. For example, the Epistle of Jude draws heavily on noncanonical books such as 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses. As E. Isaac says of 1 Enoch, “It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact)…in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism.”16
The so-called Muratorian Fragment, dating from the late second century A.D., shows that some Christians of the period accepted the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture. Clement of Alexandria, writing around A.D. 200, seems to admit a New Testament canon of thirty books, including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Preaching of Peter. Origen recognized the Epistle of Barnabas and the letter from the Shepherd of Hermas.17
Even in more recent times, the question of canon has not been unanimously resolved. Martin Luther characterized the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw”—largely because it seemed to disagree with his teaching of justification by faith alone—and mistrusted the book of Revelation.18 Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches tend to accept the Apocrypha as canonical—books included in their Bibles but left out of most Protestant Bibles, including the current King James Version. In fact, Eastern Orthodox churches have never settled the question of canon. A number of scholars have pointed out that the church has priority, both logically and historically, over the Bible—that is, a group of believers existed before a certain body of texts, such as the books of the Old and New Testament, were declared canonical.19
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints deny the doctrine of original sin, they are not Christian?
The notion of original sin as it is usually understood today in traditional Christianity is a distinctly late invention that evolved from the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. Tertullian (second century A.D.), who was very concerned with the idea of sin, says nothing of the doctrine of original sin. Indeed, very few of the Church Fathers up to the fourth century show any interest in it at all. It was not clearly enunciated until Augustine (fourth/fifth century) needed it in his battle with the Christian Pelagians, who denied the doctrine, and it came to be associated with the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418.20
As Norbert Brox points out, “Pelagian theology was the traditional one, especially in Rome. But the Africans, under the theological leadership of Augustine, managed to make their charge of heresy stick within the church, thereby establishing the Augustinian theology of grace as the basis of the Western tradition.”21 Some modern scholars now raise the issue that Augustine, and not Pelagius, was the real heretic.22
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints reject the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, they are not Christians?
Perhaps the most famous statement of the Latter-day Saint understanding of the relation between grace and works is in 2 Nephi 25:23: “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” This idea is sometimes called synergism —a term Van A. Harvey has used to describe Roman Catholicism.23
The doctrine that salvation depends both on God’s grace and man’s good works is very old in Catholic theology. One of the canons at the Council of Trent specifically repudiates the notion of grace alone: “If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ’s sake alone; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema.”24 Are we to say, then, that Roman Catholicism is not Christian because it does not subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone?
The doctrine of salvation through faith alone, sometimes called solafidianism, is not a biblical doctrine: there are no instances in the New Testament of the phrases “grace alone” or “faith alone.” The philosopher-theologian Frederick Sontag argues that Jesus himself was interested not in words, and not even in theological dogma, but in action: For the Jesus in Matthew, he says, “Action is more important than definition.”25 Richard Lloyd Anderson shows that even in Paul’s major treatments of the doctrine of grace, particularly in Romans and Ephesians, there is a balancing element of works as well.26 Other New Testament writers, most notably James, make it clear that saving faith can only be recognized through works: “Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17.)
The generations immediately following the New Testament period also recognized the need for both grace and works for salvation. The famous Didache—The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles—which dates back to before A.D. 70, is conspicuous for its moralism and legalism.27 It is also significant that “the oldest datable literary document of Christian religion soon after the time of the Apostles”—the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written in the last decade of the first century—emphasizes “good works, as it is in the Epistle of James, which may belong to the same time.”28 The second-century document Shepherd of Hermas contains twelve commandments. J. L. Gonzales writes that they “are a summary of the duties of a Christian, and Hermas affirms that in obeying them there is eternal life.”29
Even F. F. Bruce, who contends that Paul taught a doctrine of salvation by grace alone, concurs sadly that the doctrine was not a part of the early Christian church: “The Biblical doctrine of divine grace, God’s favour shown to sinful humanity, …seems almost, in the post-apostolic age, to reappear only with Augustine. Certainly the majority of Christian writers who flourished between the apostles and Augustine do not seem to have grasped what Paul was really getting at…Marcion has been called the only one of these writers who understood Paul.”30
Marcion, incidentally, was a second-century gnostic Christian who distinguished between the gods of the Old and New Testament. He felt that the Old Testament deity was a lesser deity than the God of the New Testament and rejected the Old Testament entirely, as well as any New Testament writing “tainted” with Old Testament ideas. Marcion produced a canon of scripture that recognized no Apostle of Jesus except Paul. He considered the other Apostles falsifiers of God.
By contrast, in the fourth century, one prominent Christian bishop was teaching the necessity of rituals. “If any man receive not Baptism,” wrote Cyril of Jerusalem, “he hath not salvation.” He also wrote about an ordinance of anointing, which he called “chrism”: “Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians… For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had no proper claim to that title.”31
The Eastern Orthodox churches also do not accept solafidianism, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. “Eastern Orthodox Christians emphasize a unity of faith and works. For the Orthodox, being conformed to the image of Christ…includes a response of our faith and works.”32 Sensing the danger that a “grace alone” position could become “cheap grace” (to borrow an expression from the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer) or “a theologically thin, no-sweat Christianity,” some modern Protestant writers have adopted a similar position, recognizing that works also play a vital role in salvation.33
With so many other past and present Christians rejecting the position that grace alone brings salvation, excluding the Latter-day Saints from “Christianity” for their belief in faith and works is not justified.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints easily meet the definition of a Christian as implicitly defined in the New Testament: they believe that ancient prophets foretold Christ’s coming, that Jesus Christ suffered for our transgressions, that he was put to death but rose from the dead, that through him we may obtain forgiveness of our sins, and that he will come again in glory.
The doctrinal reasons some Christians give for excluding the Latter-day Saints from Christianity make little sense, because many of the doctrines used by traditional Christianity are late developments, reflective of creeds formulated in the fourth and fifth century or developed during the Reformation.
Given the wide variety of beliefs among the various Christian churches, it is better to take persons claiming to be Christians at their word and to let the Lord be the judge.
Daniel C. Peterson, an instructor of Arabic at Brigham Young University, serves on the Church Curriculum Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee. Stephen D. Ricks is an associate professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages at BYU. He is currently accompanying faculty in the university’s travel study program in Israel.
Notes
1. Cited by Bill Forrest, “Are Mormons Christians?” Mormon Miscellaneous Response Series (Salt Lake City: Mormon Miscellaneous, n.d.).
2. Ibid.
3. See appropriate index entries in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600): The Christian Tradition (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971) and the index entry “Salvation —defined as deification,” in The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700): The Christian Tradition (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974). See also K, E. Norman, Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. dissertation, Duke Univ., 1980.
4. Clyde L. Manschreck, A History of Christianity in the World, 2d. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985), p. 52.
5. P. Barlow, “Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History,” Sunstone 8 (Sep./Oct. 1983):16–17.
6. See G. I. Mantzarides, The Deification of Man: Saint Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Tradition, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984).
7. The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, p. 10.
8. A Grief Observed (New York: Bantam Books, 1963), pp. 84–85; Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), pp. 138–40,174,187.
9. Jack R. Pressau, I’m Saved, You’re Saved…Maybe (Atlanta: John Knox, 1977), p. 57; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 734.
10. Samuel M. Gilimour, “Baptism for the Dead,” in An Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. V. Ferm (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 54.
11. “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times,” Improvement Era, Dec. 1948, pp. 786–88, 836; Jan. 1949, pp. 24–26, 60; Feb. 1949, pp. 90– 91, 109–10, 112; Mar. 1949, pp. 146–48, 180–83; Apr. 1949, pp. 212–14.
12. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner’s, 1966), p. 130.
13. Tertullianus, Apologia 7–8; De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos 41.
14. Ongen, Contra Celsum 1:7.
15. Norbert Brox, Kirchengeschichte des Altertums (Düsseldorf, West Germany: Patmos Verlag, 1983), p. 134.
16. E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:10. See also “Apocrypha,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick (Nashville. Abingdon, 1953), 1:161–69.
17. Manschreck, p. 33.
18. R. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon–Cokesbury Press, 1950), pp. 177, 331–32; Max Lackmann, Sola Fide: Eine exegetische Studie über Jakobus 2 zur reformatorischen Rechtfertigurigslehre (Gutersloh, West Germany: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1949).
19. H. Holzapfel, Die Sekten in Deutschland (Regensburg, West Germany: Verlag Josef Kuesel & Friedrich Pustet A. G., 1923), pp. 20, 23–27; P. Johnson, A History of Christianity (New, York: Atheneum, 1983), p. 22.
20. K. Rahner, “Original Sin,” in Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. Rahner et al., 6 vols. (London: Burns and Oates, 1969), 4:329.
21. Kirchengeschichte, p. 141 (authors’ translation).
22. W. E. Phipps, “The Heresiarch: Pelagius or Augustine?” Anglican Theological Review 62 (1980):124–33.
23. A Handbook of Theological Terms (London: George Allen Unwin, 1966), p. 199.
24. Session V1, Canon 12, cited in L. Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1986), p. 261.
25. “The Once and Future Christian,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 19 (1986):116–18.
26. Understanding Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983), pp. 185–86, 272–76, 355–62.
27. Justo L. Gonzales, A History of Christian Thought, 3 vols (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 1:69, 94–96.
28. Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1961), pp 12, 15–16.
29. Gonzales, p. 89.
30. The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), p. 334.
31. Catechetical Lectures 3:10; 21:5.
32. W. G. Rusch, “Getting to Know the Orthodox,” The Lutheran, 2 Apr. 1986, p. 12.
33. Pressau, p. 38. See also J. Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1973), pp. 144–49.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=93
posted July 11, 2007 at 1:49 am
POC777,
>*Baptism into Mormonism doesn’t mean you’re Christian–heart >conversion is what makes you a Christain!
First, thank you very much for quoting all my testimony in your reply. I appreciate that more than I can adequately portray here.
Second, I don’t think that my Mormon baptism or my heartfelt testimony of the Jesus Christ does completely signify a “heart conversion”. The way a person lives His teachings in their life does that. My testimony conveys my personal opinion of Jesus Christ quite accurately, if not completely. My baptism signifies a covenant that I have made with Him that I will take His name upon me; that I will remember Him and keep His commandments.
>*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and >standing before God’s Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, >Heaven, why?
Thank you for asking and taking such an interest in my salvation.
I am not 100% sure that I have earned such a standing before God, but I am trying very hard to. One of the things that Christ taught was the parable of the talents and I am not sure my life completely reflects compliance with the underlying principle behind that teaching, among others. I am a sinful man, working to align my life to become one with Christ.
posted July 11, 2007 at 2:12 am
This is my first “blog” ever! Be kind!
I am a happily married, 41 year old mother of three daughters as well as a public school teacher. My husband and I have been married for 21 years and share so much love and joy in our home. We have raised our daughters in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, teaching them to love their Savior and to follow His teachings as we grow to understand them better each day. I am happy to say my girls have grown-up as moral, kind and intelligent young women who have testimonies of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are truly blessed!
With respect to some participants in this conversation, I think it is dangerous for anyone who professes to follow the teachings of our Savior to engage in negative, hurtful dialogue because it does not help bring people to Christ. If ministers, pastors, preachers, priests, intellectuals, laymen and women, and other miscellaneous interested folks intend to convince people to follow a certain definition of Christianity – I ask: What is the purpose? Why are people engaging in a debate of semantics?
One thing I really like about my church is that I have always been taught NOT to disrespect other religions. Our 11th Article of Faith states, ”We claim the privilege of worshiping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how where, or what they may.” I have never seen a Mormon standing outside of a church or religious conference holding signs that bash other religions and shouting hate speech. Most Mormons will tell you this is a common occurrence at our General Conferences, Pageants, and historical church sites. Again, I ask: What is the purpose? As many people have experienced personally, Mormons are generally friendly, helpful, hard-working folks. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to mankind (more Christ-like?) to spend our lives feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and visiting the lonely and ill?
I would like to suggest that this kind of debate is rarely productive because Lucifer, the Father of All Lies, is seeking, with great energy and cunning, to turn our attention away from bringing people to Christ. He mires us in the mud of semantics, ignorance and fearful prejudices. I think he does this very cleverly because we sometimes allow ourselves to feel extremely self-righteous, proud and knowledgeable in our own beliefs. We begin to allow the letter of the law to overcome the spirit of Christ’s gospel message of peace.
Let’s not get lost in definitions of “Christianity.” Instead, let’s use our time and talents to become more Christ-like.
“Joy”
posted July 11, 2007 at 3:22 pm
i think a main point that is being overlooked here is that mormons view themselves as the true christians, thus it only makes sense that they wouldn’t be considered christian by the orthodox definition. they believe that those following the orthodox definition are following something corrupt and false and that their restored faith was delivered to the prophet joseph smith by god himself as true and the way he had intended his religion to be from the start.
posted July 11, 2007 at 5:25 pm
To samrahuasa
I would like to restate my main point:
One thing I really like about my church is that I have always been taught NOT to disrespect other religions. Our 11th Article of Faith states, ”We claim the privilege of worshiping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
We are a faith that has been persecuted quite a lot, so this belief is particularly meaningful to us.
I am a Mormon myself and we do not claim that other faiths hold no true doctrines. As for the definition of “Christianity” – as I stated previously- I don’t believe we should argue semantics. I believe that Satan would like us to contend among ourselves over such things. We should live as Christ taught us to live; therefore, we can be what he would have us be.
What do Mormons say when we are together in our church meetings? We say that many people (members of our church or not) are Christian and they do follow gospel teachings as Christ himself taught. If this is simplistic, then I confess to being a simple – and happy – woman.
We differ in our beliefs in the fact that we believe that God hasn’t stopped communicating with His children. We believe in continuing revelation. We believe that God answers our sincere prayers. How do we know what we receive is from God? That is a very important question!
Whether you believe in the Bible alone or in the Book of Mormon also, if a revelation (given to Joseph Smith or to you or me) is from God, then the Holy Spirit must be involved. How do you know that you are feeling the promptings of the Holy Spirit? According to scripture, you feel the promptings of the “still, small voice” within you or you experience a feeling of comfort, overwhelming love and peace. Yes, it’s hard to describe or explain because it’s something you must personally experience. It’s like trying to describe a taste to someone who has never eaten that particular food. Just give them a bite and – ahhhhh! There it is!
I’m so grateful for my friends, most of who are not members of my church because I don’t live in Utah (ha ha), who enrich my life and help bring me closer to my Savior. I accept the fact that this world is complex and only God knows our hearts.
“Joy”
posted July 11, 2007 at 8:37 pm
This is such an old argument, “Are Mormon’s Christian?” and yet it continues to scratch heads and stump even the scholars. Who are we to try to define who is and who is not a believer in Christ?
God knows our hearts and he will be the judge.
I believe in Christ. I know that he is God the Son and I believe he is the Savior of the world. I am also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I am too engaged in trying to live a good life and trying to be like Christ to worry whether or not people think I am a Christian. If everyone had this outlook then we wouldn’t be preoccupied over theory and tradition defining who we are.
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:20 am
“JOY” – THANK-YOU for your thoughtful post, containing very sensible comments!
my post back on July 8 at 1:59, “WHOA! STOP!” said essentially the same thing.
if we all LIVE according to Christ’s pattern, we will change the world.
yet it seems that at least some here refuse to listen, or just don’t get the message.
sad.
So, IMHO, we just have to go on loving them as God’s children, and knowing they will one day wake up.
wouldn’t it be lovely if instead of constantly harping on the differences in our varied doctrines, we focused on and worked on discovering our common ground !!
I get so tired of the ‘fence mentality’ – “us in here and everybody else out there.”
I wish you – and all – Numbers 6:24-26
Verndigger
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:06 pm
ENOUGH ALL READY!!!
There is no value in these incessant arugments…
Not too unlike Islam, which has been seized by radical fundamentalists, so too the modern day Christian movement, is seized by radical fundamentalists…
“By their fruits…” is the only true measure of a Christian. It’s not so much “What” we believe, but how we “Act” that determines ones true faith in Jesus Christ. Even the devils “believe” that Jesus is the Christ (see James 2:19; Luke 8:27-8), and perhaps, at least on this point, we can ALL agree that it won’t save them.
Only when we start loving one another for “Who” we are (children of God) and not for “What” we believe, will Christ’s hope for us ever be realized.
Jesus never got into “Bible bashing” but instead simply stated the truths and then went about “acting” as a Christian.
Funny thing about faith…it really does require Faith…
Praise God we live in a time and country where we can “act” out our Christian beliefs…
So continue arguing if you like…but for me, I’m off to help my Jewish neighbor move a piano, then I have to set the BBQ and get ready for my Mormon friends who are coming to dinner tonight…who knows maybe tomorrow I can go watch my Catholic neighbor’s kid pitch baseball in the Pee Wee league classic…
rotorhead
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:19 pm
AMEN, and AMEN, Rotorhead!!!
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:06 am
POC777,
>*Baptism into Mormonism doesn’t mean you’re Christian–heart >conversion is what makes you a Christain!
First, thank you very much for quoting all my testimony in your reply. I appreciate that more than I can adequately portray here.
Second, I don’t think that my Mormon baptism or my heartfelt testimony of the Jesus Christ does completely signify a “heart conversion”. The way a person lives His teachings in their life does that. My testimony conveys my personal opinion of Jesus Christ quite accurately, if not completely. My baptism signifies a covenant that I have made with Him that I will take His name upon me; that I will remember Him and keep His commandments.
My response:
Jesus said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. Mormon doctrine, opposes, denies and contradicts, what Jesus commandments in the four gospels.
>*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and >standing before God’s Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, >Heaven, why?
Thank you for asking and taking such an interest in my salvation.
I am not 100% sure that I have earned such a standing before God, but I am trying very hard to
My response:
But Jesus HAS already paid the price for your sin-debt in full–eternal life–it’s a gift that must be received, we can’t earn it through personal merits, is that simple. Read this verse John 3:16, does it say anything about “earning our salvation” yes or no?
One of the things that Christ taught was the parable of the talents and I am not sure my life completely reflects compliance with the underlying principle behind that teaching, among others. I am a sinful man, working to align my life to become one with Christ.
My response:
Have you said this simple prayer: LORD Jesus, I repent of all my sin. Thank you for dying on the cross for me and resurrecting on the third day. LORD Jesus, come into my heart as my LORD and Savior, fill me with your Holy Spirt and make a new person. With a new heart, a new mind and a clean conscience—write my name in the Lamb’s book of life and make me the person You want me to be all the days of my life. In Jesus name, I pray. Amen and Amen.
Posted by: Bill Housley | July 11, 2007 1:49 AM
posted July 13, 2007 at 3:10 am
My Personal Christian Views
I will just put my opinion out here, and if it offends or is not accurate, I apologize in advance. My knowledge of Mormon is very limited. I will try to input only what I “know”, but some of my info has come from other comments on this topic.
I was sent to a Lutheran school for six of my Grammar school years. I do lean towards their beliefs, but do not consider myself a Lutheran. I have been “on vacation” from faith for many years following that schooling, due to the fact that “I hated being force fed religion for so long”. In the last few years, I have “found” my faith in the lord, as described in “The Holy Bible”. I consider myself as merely a “Christian”. My father is Catholic. My mother was Lutheran, went with the “witness” faith for a while, and now I am not sure how she believes. My father-in-law is a Mormon. I have been “around” a little.
The Basics
There is a lot of talk about the basics, so here it is plain and simple, according to my understanding of the Bible. If you believe that God sent his son down to earth to die for our sins, and are “Baptized in Christ”, and repent of your sins, you will be “saved”.
The definition of “sin” has been interpreted countless ways over time. I have heard too many to list. I believe the “Ten Commandments” summed it up pretty well. If you really think about it, most laws, rules, guides, are just various “explanations” of those original TEN. Bottom line is if you “feel” or “think” it is wrong, then it probably is a sin.
When they say “receive (received, receiving, etc.) the Holy Ghost”, it is simply taking these beliefs “to heart”; letting them guide you and your actions, emotions, etc. When that happens, you are “showing” and/or “living” your faith. Let God’s Word and Teachings guide your life.
My Views
The thing about Mormons that gets me is “the book of Mormon” is a “testament of Jesus Christ”. Unless I read the bible wrong, Jesus will return on Judgment Day to judge all. It said nothing of adding more testaments to the bible. He said, “My word is the true word”, not find another book to believe as well. That is where I find “inconsistencies” in the Mormon faith. He did warn us that the devil will try very hard to trick us, including “false” faiths. I am NOT calling Mormon a false faith. It is not my place to judge, I simply do not agree with having another book “side-by-side” with the “Holy Bible”.
I do not understand how the Joseph Smith person fits in, but he should not be ranked as high as God or Jesus. If he is not, then that is fine. If that were the case, I would have to group Mormon close to Catholic, in that they prey to someone other than God or Jesus. I know Catholics do prey to Mary for some things.
Mary was just a normal woman, of her time, who “believed” in the “promise of a savior”. She was nothing more than that. That was the point of Jesus time on earth. He was to have the same kind of life as any other person on earth, but he was perfect (without sin), and he still had to die like all the sinners. That alone is how he redeemed all of us.
Closing
So, if you believe in God and the Life/Death of Christ (and the reason behind it), Are “Baptized in Christ”, Truly Repent of your sins, and “Receive the Holy Ghost (as described above) and live your life according to the “Holy Bible”, then you are a True Christian, No matter what “name” your religion has.
Lastly
Let us all remember a Quote from Jesus, himself, “Judge not; lest you be judged.” Only God can say who is right or wrong.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm
POC777:Jesus said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. Mormon doctrine, opposes, denies and contradicts, what Jesus commandments in the four gospels.
GB:Can you say “naked assertion”.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:42 pm
POC777,
Again, I truly appreciate your kindness toward me in this discussion, it is very refreshing and–sadly–rare.
>Mormon >doctrine, opposes, denies and contradicts, what Jesus >commandments in the four gospels.
You have been misinformed on this. If you can provide me with some specifics I might be able to help you understand Mormon doctrine better in this regard. I do not have the authority to speak
for and in behalf of my church, but I am very familiar with Mormon beliefs–both the REAL beliefs and those things that some people claim that we believe that we do not–and I am somewhat familiar with traditional Christian beliefs as well. I am more than happy to help.
>But Jesus HAS already paid the price for your sin-debt in full–>eternal life–it’s a gift that must be received, we can’t earn it >through personal merits, is that simple. Read this verse John
>3:16, does it say anything about “earning our salvation” yes or no?
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/3/16)
We agree with this scripture completely. However, we also believe that Jesus taught that to simply say we believe is not enough. Actions speak louder than words. We also believe in the doctrine of repentance.
I should note that if this scritpure passage really does say that all we have to do is believe is Jesus then Mormons really are saved, for they do beleive in Jesus. I should also note that this scripture makes no mention of the Nicene Creed.
>Have you said this simple prayer: LORD Jesus, I repent of all my sin. >Thank you for dying on the >cross for me and resurrecting on the >third day. LORD Jesus, come into my heart as my LORD and
>Savior, fill me with your Holy Spirt and make a new person. With a >new heart, a new mind and a >clean conscience—write my name in the >Lamb’s book of life and make me the person You want me to be all the >days of my life. In Jesus name, I pray. Amen and Amen.
Quite often. Not these exact words of course, but yes. The only difference is that Mormons direct their prayers to Heavenly Father, as we think Jesus himself taught us to do.
There are a number of commandments, doctrines, clarifications and interpretations which Mormons believe Jesus Christ has provided mankind through prophets who are not represented in the Holy Bible. This rather specifically excludes us from the Nicene Creed, but that’s fine with us because we don’t consider the Nicene Council to be authoritative. I do not consider the British law to drive on the left side of the road to be authoritative, because I drive in the United States. If a British citizen were to contend that just because I don’t drive on the left side of the road I am not a REAL driver, that would of course be absurd. The provisions of the Nicene Creed are binding on members of the Nicene Creed and we have chosen to exclude ourselves from those restrictions. We are free from them. If this sounds arrogant, then consider that our doctrines were taught to us by angels and we don’t think that such a source ought to be filtered by a committee of dead men who were not prophets of God.
If I owned a company, and I appointed representatives to go about telling others what my company stands for, those reprehensive would have authority to speak for me. If someone else whom I did not appoint decided to start going around telling others what I and my company stood for, it would be their opinion they would be sharing, not mine, and nothing they said would be binding upon me or members of my company.
posted July 13, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Mr. Housley
I greatly admire your sincerity as a Mormon and how you approached my post–it is quite rare to find someone like yourself. I understand that the Book of Mormon, has Christian doctrine–that is find by me–I don’t go by “feelings”–the burning on your bosom. The Bible teaches us to not trust in our hearts because they will deceive us–we need to trust in God not man(Jer 17:5). If you say you’re Christian then you will obey this precept “we live by faith not by sight” and don’t go by your feelings. My problem is with D&C, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham and countless of revelations received from those inside the Temple that: oppose, contradict and deny what is written in the Bible and BOM.
I have read and studied the BOM(1830 edition) and “the everlasting gospel”, which is Mormon doctrine. I don’t agree with this statement: “As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become”. Nowhere do we find this in the Bible and the BOM. I don’t agree that Jesus Christ came to the Americas on 34 AD to preach to the Lamanites(Indians). I don’t agree with exaltation into Godhood to receive the free gift of everlasting life to go to Heaven. I don’t agree with Mormon men having sexual relations with Mormon women as gods and godesses–to produce spiritual children ruling their own planets.
I don’t agree with polygamy–God in the Book of Genesis, only married Adam and Eve nobody could deny this command–there is only marriage between one man and one woman. I don’t believe in baptism for the dead to save the souls of departed love ones–the Bible teaches someone dies in their sins without Christ it’s all over, no more could be done. These are just “some” of the things, I don’t agree with the Church of Latter-Day Saints–it contradicts the Bible and the BOM. I know many Mormons who call themselves “Christians” but are not really following Jesus Christ but Joseph Smith and another Jesus Christ that’s not from the Bible.
posted July 13, 2007 at 6:16 pm
POC777
As far as you polygamy questions see “Posted by: Mike Bennion | July 12, 2007 11:59 PM” on the “Are Any Sincere Christians Expendable?” thread.
posted July 14, 2007 at 1:34 am
I don’t agree with this statement: “As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become”.
First of all, while that’s a widely known statement and accepted statement by a prophet, it’s not scripture, or in the D&C. I’m not sure what it means exactly, but all LDS people I know believe that that Jesus Christ will always be our savior and our God. Many LDS believe that one day we will create worlds just as God created this one. But that’s speculative.
Consider that Anasthasius, the architect of the Nicene Creed, said something very similar to that quote by Lorenzo Snow. Anasthasius said “God became man, so that man might become God.”
The first part is easiest to understand — God became man refers to Jesus Christ, right? Isn’t that what the book of John taught?
Joseph Smith once pointed out that Jesus said that he’d done nothing that he hadn’t seen the Father do first, and theorized that God the Father had once come down to an earth, as Jesus had. That this wasn’t the first time this has all happened. But Joseph Smith was speculating. If you read the speech (which was a funeral sermon, not a scriptural work), Joseph Smith even states at the beginning of the speech that he’s interpreting the scriptures for himself and hopes that God will inspire him. That means it’s not prophesy. The church hasn’t canonized the theory as scripture, nor have we rejected it. The theory is closely based on Bible scripture, rather than on any modern revelation, and I don’t think any of the support is from the Book of Mormon.
What did Anasthasius and Lorenzo Snow mean about that part of Man becoming God, then? I’m not sure, but it’s clear they are both drawing on Bible scripture again — John chapter 17, Jesus prays that the disciples will become one as Jesus and the father are one, Revelations chapters 1-3 and Chapter 21, the promises to “he that overcometh,” e.g. to sit with God on his throne …
I suspect it means that God’s love and his great mind will fill us as Jesus prayed would happen to his disciples in John 17, that we will be one with God. I’m very uncomfortable with the word “gods,” but that’s the word that Jesus used, “ye are gods and children of the most high.” I’m not sure, and I can’t trust my feelings of discomfort to tell me that the scripture is “wrong.” This is the Bible. I may not understand it all, but I’m not going to turn my back on it, even if 99% of Christians tell me to ignore those parts.
posted July 14, 2007 at 1:44 am
“The thing about Mormons that gets me is “the book of Mormon” is a “testament of Jesus Christ”. Unless I read the bible wrong, Jesus will return on Judgment Day to judge all. It said nothing of adding more testaments to the bible.”
The Bible itself wasn’t compiled to include the New Testament until the 4th century. Unless I read the Bible wrong, there’s nothing in the Bible about compiling the gospels and epistles and Acts and the book of Revelation into one single book, and calling that book “The Bible.”
Alternately, perhaps you did read the Bible wrong, or not at all, and missed the prophesies of the voice that would cry out from the dust, the prophesy in Ezekiel of the “stick of Joseph,” (the book of Mormon) that would be joined with the “stick of Judah” (the Bible), and the prophesy by Jacob in Genesis about what would happen with the seed of his son Joseph.
In either event, it seems a little presumptuous to say that God could not possibly do anything simply because you aren’t aware of it.
Is this what the tradition of Christian Orthodoxy has come to?
He is not a tame lion.
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:21 am
“Dr. Mohler’s first sentence in this post was a question. “Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?” The only honest answer is “No, we Mormons are not ‘Traditional’ Christian Orthodoxy.”"
That’s an honest answer to the question that Dr. Mohler appears to have *meant*, but that’s not the answer to the question that he actually posed.
You answered the question “Are Mormons traditional Orthodox Christians.” And I think that’s the question that Dr. Mohler is addressing as well.
But it’s not the question that Dr. Mohler was assigned to answer.
The question,”Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?”, presumes that “traditional Christian Orthodoxy has provided a definition of the word “Christians.” Only once we identify that definition, can we answer the question of whether Mormons meet that definition.
Where is the definition?
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:38 am
Rotorhead,
You said, “It’s not so much “What” we believe, but how we “Act” that determines ones true faith in Jesus Christ. Even the devils “believe” that Jesus is the Christ (see James 2:19; Luke 8:27-8), and perhaps, at least on this point, we can ALL agree that it won’t save them.”
So are you saying that actions trump doctrine? If so, how does a person know what actions are pleasing to God without clear teaching? Please see the following sampling of verses for examples of the importance of right doctrine.
2 Timothy 2:14-15 (rightly handle the word of truth)
Luke 24:45-47 (Christ opened their minds to UNDERSTAND the scriptures)
Revelation 2:15 (Christ identifies those holding to false teachings)
2 John 1:9-11
“Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
Gal 1:6-9 (anyone preaching a different gospel is accursed)
Romans 6:17-18 (our righteous living stems from following true teaching)
Romans 10:9-14 (what we believe is vital to salvation)
Romans 16:17-18
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.”
2 Timothy 4:1-5
“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
Of course it matters what we believe. What will happen to your Jewish friend if he were to die in his sleep tonight without the Messiah?
Luke 12:4-5 Jesus said, “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”
I guess Jesus didn’t spend ALL of his time just walking around and “acting” Christian.
posted July 14, 2007 at 3:10 am
“So, what does Mormonism reject? The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations.”
Then state that definition. Or else we will wonder if there really is a consensus!
Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity.
Then state these doctrines as part of the supposed definition of Christianity, if you are not ashamed of them! Althoough I think some people will be astonished at the theological speculations that you are offering as the core essence of Christianity, and wonder why you’d have to believe those things in order to be saved.
“The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology.”
I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. You believe in One God in three eternal persons. We believe in three eternal persons in One God. You have to be a professional theologian to tear your hair out about that. I don’t think that people rise to heaven or burn in hell because some think there is One God in three persons, while others think there are Three Persons in One God. The number of persons, and the number of God, is the same.
The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one.
The Book of Mormon teaches repeatedly that there is One God, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are One God. Three persons in one God. Yes, there are other statements from LDS prophets who speak of “gods” in the plural, and the Bible does this too, (Jesus said “ye are gods and children of the most high.”) I don’t rightly know what it means, but if you believe in the Bible, you don’t just excise it out because it doesn’t fit neatly into the Nicene Creed. I just hang on to it and see if it makes more sense when God wants me to understand it.
“Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.”
Anasthasius, the architect of the Nicene Creed, himself wrote “God became man so that man might become God.” Was your Nicene Creed written by a non-Christian, then? I don’t completely understand what Anasthasius meant, or what the LDS prophet Lorenzo Snow meant by that incredibly similar statement, but there’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that I don’t understand.
“Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God”
That’s a demonstrably false statement, sir. The Book of Mormon teaches explicitly that Jesus is the only begotton son of God. See 2 Ne. 25: 12; Jacob 4: 5; Jacob 4: 11; Alma 5: 48; Alma 9: 26; Alma 12: 33-34; Alma 13: 5, 9.
“the second person of the Trinity,”
The “Trinity” is not in the Bible, either. Can you show anything in the Book of Mormon regarding the nature of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is at odds with the same teachings in the Bible? Because by the standard you are laying out, the New Testament is not “Christian” according to this elusive “definition of Christianity” that you still have not shared with us.
“or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.”
That’s a demonstrably false statement, sir. The Book of Mormon teaches that doctrine explicitly. See Mosiah 16: 13 (“remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved”); see also 3 Ne. 9: 21; 1 Ne. 11: 33; Alma 5: 21; etc.
posted July 14, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Dr. Mohler, you state that the “Jesus of the Book of Mormon” is not “the second person of the trinity,” and I agree with you, since the trinity doctrine isn’t in the Bible either.
But there are other churches who follow the Book of Mormon and the Bible who would disagree with us. The Community of Christ, for example, is one of a number of churches that interpret the Book of Mormon as teaching the doctrine of the trinity.
Have you read the book that you speak of?
posted July 15, 2007 at 10:11 am
There are two kinds of Christians
Those who are “right” and those who are “wrong”
It is the ones who are right that decide which is which.
–Abbie Hoffman
posted July 15, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Hahaha, this is really funny, here you have a so-called Christian sect that goes around bashing all other Christians. Only recently Southern Baptist were distributing cd’s and flyers on how Mormons are wrong. How is that a display of Christianity when you are tearing down the belief of others. Do you see Mormons or even Catholics going around, tearing down others belief’s? Lead by example, buddy not by words alone.
posted July 15, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Those of us that are Christians, that were once Mormons, are not tearing down anyone’s beliefs. We are merely pointing out the difference between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Book of Mormon. Mormons are not taught in the missionary lessons that Jesus is any different in the Bible then in the BofM. It is not until a person has been in the church for over a year that they learn the truth, usually by going to the temple. Everyone has the right to believe in Jesus in whatever form they desire, however, to put his name so boldly in the title of their church is very misleading. I now know that the Jesus who gave me salvation is not the Jesus that I was taught about in the Mormon church. I attened the Mormon church since I was a child and the Jesus they taught was the one in the King James bible. Then, when I was old enough to go to the temple, I was taught about another Jesus. All I am asking of the Mormons, are for them to be truthful from the beginning, the missionary lessons, regarding their view of Jesus, so that a person investigating the church can make the decision to do so, based on the whole truth, not a half truth.
posted July 15, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Lori Daniel:Then, when I was old enough to go to the temple, I was taught about another Jesus.
GB: This statement makes me doubt that you ever went to the temple. It also makes me doubt that you were ever a mormon.
posted July 16, 2007 at 11:43 am
GB, you can think whatever you choose, but when I took the lessons from the missonaries they taught that God created the earth. But then in the temple, we find out that he send angles down to the work. Also, no where in the Bible does it state that Satan is the brother of Jesus. Yet this a taught to us in the church. Is it not?
Also, you should search the internet for the Free Mason ceremony and see how much the Mormon temple ceremony copies it. Joseph Smith was a Free Mason and within a few months of becoming one, he had the revelation of the temple ceremony. The hand shakes, the special words, the wearing of the apron, etc. Also, why does the church keep changing the temple endowment ceremony. It use to be that a temple worker would touch a person, receiving their endowments and garments, with oil on certain parts of the body. Well, many people became uncomfortable with this practice and so it was stopped. I come from a long line of Mormons, so yes I do know what I am talking about.
posted July 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Lori:But then in the temple, we find out that he send angles down to the work.
GB: This statement makes me doubt that you ever went through the temple. It also makes me doubt that you were ever a mormon.
And if you were it obvious that you are a bitter person who has a lot of hate inside. No wonder the Mormons prefer not to spend time with you. It is a big turn off to be bitter, hateful and carrying a very large chip on your shoulder. It sounds like the problem is with you not your former Mormon associates.
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:12 pm
“We are merely pointing out the difference between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Book of Mormon.”
That’s not an accurate description of what you’re doing, Lori. If that’s what you were doing, you’d quote the Book of Mormon’s statements about Jesus, and show how these teachings were inconsistent with the Bible. But since the teachings are consistent, you and others like you, including, I’m sad to say, Dr. Mohler, make sweeping and innaccurate statements about what mormons beleive about Jesus, and then pass these statements off as “the Jesus of the Book of Mormon.”
If book of Mormon taught a “different Jesus” than the Jesus described in the Bible, then you could prove it very easily, by quoting.
I’d like to reiterate that Dr. Mohler did not address the actual question that was assigned to answer.
The question,”Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?”, presumes that “traditional Christian Orthodoxy has provided a definition of the word “Christians.” Only once we identify that definition, can we answer the question of whether Mormons meet that definition. Dr. Mohler has offered us the Nicene Creed (without citing it) as a definition of Christianity, but the Nicene Creed was a definition of Christian ORTHODOXY. Dr. Mohler provides no evidence to show that anyone ever used the term “non-Christian” to refer to people who believed in the resurrection and atonement, but did not agree with all the particulars of the Nicene Creed.
Where is this definition that was supposed to have been debated?
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I agree with GB, Lori was never a Mormon. And certainly was not active for a year to be granted access to a temple. She is simply spouting off anti-Mormon rhetoric and trying to justify her knowledge by claiming to have been an insider. But here deception is so thinly veiled that anyone with half a brain can see right through it. Get a life.
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:15 pm
And I use the term “knowledge” loosely.
posted July 17, 2007 at 4:11 pm
GB, I’d agree that Lori’s obviously paid more attention to anti-mormons than she has to the LDS church. For example, like most mormons, she probably learned that the LDS church “teaches” that Jesus is Satan’s brother by listening to anti-mormons rant. (Yes, the statement can be inferred from LDS doctrine, just as any Christian could infer it from reading the Book of Job, but antimormons frame it misleadingly, since the description of God’s angels (including the fallen angel lucifer) as God’s “sons”, and the New Testament inclusion of all of us as children of God, in no way treads on the fact that Jesus is “the only begotten of the father.” God is the father of our spirits, and has the same relationship with the angels, according to Job, but Jesus had no mortal father; Jesus was conceived miraculously when his mother, the virgin Mary. That’s why Jesus is the “only begotten” of the Father.
Still, I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to accuse Lori of lying here. Not all LDS folks pay attention in the church or in the temple, and some that stray learn most of what they “know” about the church from antimormons. In my experience, the fakers, like “LDSboy,” are a lot more obvious to spot. Just correct her false statements of doctrine when you can. I realize it’s frustrating because when she makes claims about the temple ceremony, we can’t respond specifically because of promises we made.
Lori said: “certain parts of the body. Well, many people became uncomfortable with this practice and so it was stopped.”
Lori, your calculated vaguness makes the temple ceremony sound very exciting, but the truth is less titilating. I’ve been doing initiatories since 1986, and there’s never been any sort of innapropriate touching as part of the ceremony. Anyone remotely acquainted with the church knows that we are a very modest people with regard to how we dress. Yes, some folks are uncomfortable with close proximity, and being held for baptism by emersion even troubles such people. Women officiate in ordinances for other women in the temple — The least honest antis often say or try to give the impression that men are administering the washings and annointings to women in the temple, but even the Tanners decry that sort of scare tactic falsehood.
The doctrine taught in the endowment ceremony does not change. The purpose of the endowment is to provide members with the blessings and knowledge they need to overcome the world. (See Revelations 3:21, etc.) As the world changes, the blessings and knowledge needed to overcome it, also changes. Our destination has not changed, but our starting point has changed, therefore the journey is slightly different.
posted July 17, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Peter, normally I would agree with you but in this case, Lori has claimed to have thoroughly investigated the churches doctrine and history. Thus my very strong rebuke of her.
posted July 18, 2007 at 7:35 am
Wow, an actual one sided debate. Funny thing is that Mormonism is not definable as a wholly separate religion from Christianity, and can be be more accurately defined as a “non orthodox sectarian cult within Christianity.” (no insult intended to the Mormons by use the word “cult”)
IF we were to define Christianity based on the Orthodoxy of the Nicean Creed, then the Greek Orthodox Church would not be defined as Christian, as well as the Baptist Church. (funny how a real character like John the Baptist, who makes a quick exit from the story, is actually ignored by the Baptist church) The only church definable as “Christian” according to the Nicean creed is the Catholic Church, who wrote (don’t give me crap about the catholic church coming after the Nicean creed, the church was define “catholic” meaning “World Wide” by the bishops at the time the creed was ratified.
There is a purity of truth that the Book of Moroni defined much more elegantly than the Nicean creed, and the Nicean Canon, and just because one group of old men closed the canon along time ago does not mean another group would not reopen it and redefine their belief in Jesus and Faith outside of the canon. “It is not part of the canon, therefore it is irrelevant” seems to be THE FOOLISHNESS OF Dr. Mohler,.
and the debate as to whether or a person is a Christian or not has no place in politics, and I believe many of us go beyond religion when we seek the truth of political decisions, only fervent believers will tie the party ribbon on the theology of a candidate
oh and just to let you know I am not a Mormon, nor can I be defined as a Christian, though I believe in the truth of Jesus, but because of this belief in the truth of Jesus I have been branded “devil worshiper” on many occasion because I do not tow the theological wagon behind my cart. I have only one objection to tradition Mormon values, but I have many objections to traditional Christian values.
Who cares, believe in a resurrected Jesus sometime in the near future or one who came to America because there were other sheep to lead.
posted July 18, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I concede that a strong rebuke is appropriate, but I think we should save the word “liar” for stronger cases.
Certainly a number of Lori’s statements, like Dr. Mohler’s statements about “the God of the Book of Mormon,” seem to be made in reckless disregard for their falsity, because, like you said, she claimed authority of experience for her statements. If she had the knowledge that she asserted that she had, then she *should* have known better than to say what she said.
But honest people do make reckless mistakes from time to time, and I’d prefer to save words like “liar” for clear-cut cases, like a guy that says that he IS an Mormon and then proceeds to put the words “We believe” in front of a series of statements that mormons obviously do not believe.
posted July 23, 2007 at 10:01 am
Christ answered this question Himself Dr Mohler; “by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” John 13:35.
Most “Mormons” seem to be doing their best to live by this [although some "Christians" make it a challenge!].
The Pharisees knew what was orthodox and traditional, and look where it got them. So did the inquisition.
Weren’t Baptists once cruelly condemed as heretics? – brave people, following Christ according to their faith. Do you now judge the faith of others?.
posted July 24, 2007 at 5:24 am
I am a Reorganized Latter Day Saint. Over 90% of people reading this blog have no idea what that is. I am a member of the Reorganized Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, which today is known as the simplier name “Community Of Christ”. We had to change our name twice because the “Utah Mormons” refused to, even though they were defeated in a court of law twice by our faith as the church that truly follows the leadership of Joseph Smith. We have NEVER believed in Temple Rites. Neither did Joseph Smith. We have NEVER endorsed polygammy. Neither did Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was married to several women by proxy. THis means that these women were married to him after his death. Pretty hard to denounce anything after you are dead.
Joseph Smith ordained his son Joseph Smith III to be his successor. He did this when he was imprisoned and knew he was not comming back to Nauvoo. When his attackers came to arrest him he hid out to escape arrest. But when his followers started to murmer about what kind of leader is this who hides, he decided to come back and turn himself in, knowing he was going to die. He said, “I go as a lamb to the slaughter” when the authorities took him away to Carthage. A mob attacked the jail (with the assistance of the absent police guards) and killed him and his brother Hyrim.
Joseph Smith III was only 12 years of age when his father died and too young to carry on in his father’s footsteps. So at Josephs death, many members suddenly had “revelations” that God had chosen them to lead the church. The church splintered, going in several different directions, the greatest number deciding to follow the infamous Bringham Young, who was in the Council Of Twelve, who led them to Utah. Young decided to plant his church in the middle of the desert because there were no neighbors that would harass and persecute the “Mormons.” The church could grow strong with no opposition.
During the journey, the women outnumbered the men tremendously. So, Bringham had a “revelation” that men should have more than one wife. Not only was it accepted but it became one of God’s highest Ordinances. The truth (to me) is that it was done for economical reasons, and my opinion is that Young claimed that Joseph Smith had endorsed this practice. Thus, the birth of polygammy amoung the Mormons, falsely tying Joseph Smith to the practice. The trip from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake Cith, Utah was grueling, and many died. With so many women to care for, the NEED for men to “marry” them was indeed a necessity. Afterall, the journey was made by horseback and covered wagon. It’s a long, grueling trip today by air conditioned cars.
When they finally reached Salt Lake City, they set up camp. Then the true doctrine of the church REALLY got spun and distorted. Temple Rites, Avenging Angels, Polygammy, etc. was in full bloom. The only problem that this was far, far removed from the true church. Something truly holy became contaminated.
Meanwhile, back at Nauvoo, a very small number of Mormons stayed home and did not follow anyone. When Joseph Smith III was old enough to assume leadership of the true church, the true traditional faith of the original Mormons was carried on. However, the Utah Mormons refused to let go of their name, even though they were defeated in a court of law not once, but twice, to do so. So we had to. We became “The Reorganized Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints”, the true Mormons, with Headquarters in Independence, Missouri. Within the last few years, however, we had to change it again, because the world’s perception of the Utah Mormons made it hard for us to be seperated from them, our church names being so similar.
I have empathy for the Mormons. They were misled, but they were true believers in Jesus Christ and were seeking His truth, and wanted honestly and sincerely to be good people and followers of the true God. And God can bless and sacntify anything and anyone. Though their roots after Joseph Smith’s death were tainted and smeared by a few bad men seeking and getting drunk on power, their hearts were pure and sincere.
I also have a great deal of respect for them. They are fine, very family oriented, upstanding people. Today, you might find a “bad Mormon” practicing polygammy in some small farm in Utah, but you would be very hard pressed to find any significant number of “bad Mormons” in our jails and penetientaries.
But there is a significant difference between them and us. Most Mormons (Utah) don’t even know we exist because their church does not teach them anything about us. But then again, most of the world, and probably you, the reader, never heard of us either. Just a short history for you.
posted July 25, 2007 at 9:43 am
Pope Benedict has recently declared that all Protestant, Evangelical-Born-again christians are not christians at all but defectors of the True Church of Christ or Catholicisms. “Who gets to define Christian?”
posted July 25, 2007 at 9:51 am
Mom, Are We Christians?”
Elder Gary J. Coleman
Of the Seventy
Gary J. Coleman, “‘Mom, Are We Christians?’,” Ensign, May 2007, 92–94
I am a devout Christian who is exceedingly fortunate to have greater knowledge of the true “doctrine of Christ” since my conversion to the restored Church.
Christianity celebrates the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. Christian churches with great variations of doctrine dot the land the world over. When 14-year-old Cortnee, a daughter of a mission president, entered a new high school as a freshman, she was asked by classmates if she was a Christian. They scoffed at her response that she was a Mormon, a common reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon arriving home she asked her mother, “Mom, are we Christians?”
Growing up in my family, we lived as devout members of another Christian faith. I was baptized a member of that church shortly after my birth. Our family went to church each week. For many years my brothers and I assisted the pastors who conducted our Sunday services. I was taught the importance of family prayer as our family prayed together each day. I thought that someday I would enter the full-time ministry in my church. There was no question in our minds that we could define ourselves as devout Christians.
When I was a university student, however, I became acquainted with the members and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Christian faith centered on the Savior. I began to learn about the doctrine of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days. I learned truths that I had not known before that changed my life and how I viewed the gospel. After much studying, prayer, and faith, I chose to embrace beautiful restored truths found only in this Church.
The first restored truth that I learned was the nature of the Godhead. The true Christian doctrine that the Godhead consists of three separate beings was known in biblical times. God bore witness of Jesus, His Only Begotten Son, on several occasions. He spoke at Jesus’s baptism: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”1 Jesus Himself testified of God, His Father, when He said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”2 After Jesus’s death and Resurrection, we learn that Stephen, “he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”3 What a dramatic testimony of the Godhead from that disciple of Christ.
The knowledge of God and His physical separateness from His Son and the Holy Ghost was lost after the death of Christ and His Apostles. Confusion and false doctrines about the Godhead were fashioned out of the Nicene Creed and Constantinople councils, where men declared that instead of three separate beings, the Godhead was three persons in one God, or the Trinity. Just as Christian Protestant reformers struggled with these creeds of men, I did as well. The teachings about the Trinity that I learned in my youth were incomprehensible to me.
However, when I was introduced to the glorious truths of the First Vision experienced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, it was a stunning awakening for me to finally understand the truth about the nature of God the Eternal Father and His Only Begotten Son. Joseph declared: “I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”4 This heavenly vision restored the wondrous yet plain and precious knowledge of God and His Son to the earth again, dispelling at once the teachings I had learned about the Trinity.
I know that heaven-sent revelations have replaced the gross errors of man-made doctrines concerning the Godhead. I know that God is our Heavenly Father. His Son, Jesus Christ, is my Savior. The Holy Ghost testifies of the Father and the Son. I express my profound gratitude to God for introducing the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ to mankind in these last days. The Savior lives; He has been seen; He has spoken; He directs the work of His Church through apostles and prophets today. What magnificent truths He has taught as the Good Shepherd who continues to look after His sheep.
The second restored truth I learned as an investigator of this Church was the reality of additional scripture and revelation. The prophet Isaiah saw in vision a book that he proclaimed was part of “a marvellous work and a wonder.”5 I testify that the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is that book. It is a sacred record written by prophets of God to persuade all people to come unto Christ, and it helps to reveal the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness. The Book of Mormon tells of prophets and other faithful members of the Church who took upon themselves the name of Christ, even before the Savior’s birth.6 This book tells of the resurrected Christ teaching men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the world to come. What could be more Christian than seeking to take His name upon ourselves and follow His counsel to become like Him?
President Gordon B. Hinckley has said, “I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book.”7 I first read the Book of Mormon at the age of 21. I then asked God if it was true. The truth of it was manifested unto me by the comforting power of the Holy Ghost.8 I know that the Book of Mormon is a second testament of Jesus Christ. I join my testimony with the prophets of this sacred book to declare that “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ.”9 I am deeply grateful for every word that He has spoken and for every word He continues to speak as He quenches our thirst with living water.
Another restored truth of the gospel I became acquainted with was the restoration of priesthood authority, or the power to act in God’s name. Former prophets and apostles, such as Elijah, Moses, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, have been sent by God and Christ in our day to restore the holy priesthood of God. Every priesthood holder in this Church can trace his priesthood authority directly to Jesus Christ. Men now possess the keys to establish the Church so that we can come unto Christ and partake of His eternal ordinances of salvation.10 I testify that this is the Church of Jesus Christ—the only church authorized with true priesthood authority to exercise the keys of salvation through sacred ordinances.
Cortnee asked, “Mom, are we Christians?” As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are a Christian, and I am too. I am a devout Christian who is exceedingly fortunate to have greater knowledge of the true “doctrine of Christ”11 since my conversion to the restored Church. These truths define this Church as having the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Like other members of the Church, I now understand the true nature of the Godhead, I have access to additional scripture and revelation, and I can partake of the blessings of priesthood authority. Yes, Cortnee, we are Christians, and I testify of these truths in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notes
1. Matthew 3:17.
2. John 17:3.
3. Acts 7:55–56.
4. Joseph Smith—History 1:17.
5. See Isaiah 29:14; see also vv. 11–12, 18.
6. See Alma 46:14–16.
7. The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2002, 81.
8. See Moroni 10:4–5.
9. 2 Nephi 25:26.
10. See D&C 2; 13; 110; 112:32.
11. 2 Nephi 31:2; see also 3 Nephi 11:31–36.
^ Back to top
posted July 25, 2007 at 9:54 am
“The Peaceable Followers of Christ”
By President Boyd K. Packer
Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Next >
posted July 26, 2007 at 2:10 am
Ron Sutton, speaking of the “Community of Christ” formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said: But there is a significant difference between them and us. Most Mormons (Utah) don’t even know we exist because their church does not teach them anything about us. But then again, most of the world, and probably you, the reader, never heard of us either. Just a short history for you.
Posted by: Ron Sutton | July 24, 2007 5:24 AM
Mike’s Response: I am a Utah, Wyoming, California Mormon, and I know about you and have read your information and vistied your sites in Kirtland, Ohio and Nauvoo Illinois. thnks you for your kind words about the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Ron Sutton Said: During the journey, the women outnumbered the men tremendously. So, Bringham had a “revelation” that men should have more than one wife. Not only was it accepted but it became one of God’s highest Ordinances. The truth (to me) is that it was done for economical reasons, and my opinion is that Young claimed that Joseph Smith had endorsed this practice. Thus, the birth of polygammy amoung the Mormons, falsely tying Joseph Smith to the practice. The trip from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake Cith, Utah was grueling, and many died. With so many women to care for, the NEED for men to “marry” them was indeed a necessity. Afterall, the journey was made by horseback and covered wagon. It’s a long, grueling trip today by air conditioned cars
Mike’s Response:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/against_plural.htm
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/History_EOM.htm
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/McConkie_MD.htm
No Ron. unfortunately your version does not hold up to the primary documentation about this doctrine.
posted July 26, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I do not believe that Mormon revelations come from God because God never contradicts Himself, yet Mormon revelations continually contradict themselves. It seems to me that the Mormon church was founded on those revelations, therefore it cannot be founded on Jesus Christ.
posted July 26, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Renee,
And yet you provide no evidence to back up your assertion. Are we just supposed to believe you because you said so?
I think not!
posted July 29, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Based upon the lack of documentation by many of those in the discussion, including Dr. Mohler, it might be wise for a number of people to go back and take logic classes or debate classes. I say this as a former collegiate debator.
Let me give some example from Dr. Mohlers article:
Dr. Mohler said: the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.
Mike’s response: Not only is there no documentation on this assertion, but this is a bald faced mis-statement of LDS doctrine.
Had Dr. Mohler taken the time to read more of the Book of Mormon than he has he would know this. Here are several direct quotes from the Book of Mormon that show that Dr. Mohler’s statement is in error:
Jacob 4: 5, 11
5 Behold, they believed in Christ and aworshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his bname. And for this intent we ckeep the dlaw of Moses, it epointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a fsimilitude of God and his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
• • •
11 Wherefore, beloved brethren, be areconciled unto him through the batonement of Christ, his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, and ye may obtain a dresurrection, according to the epower of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the ffirst-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.
Alma 12: 33-34
33 But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the aplan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will brepent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine ONLY BEGOTTEN SON;
34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on amercy through mine ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, unto a bremission of his sins; and these shall enter into my crest.
Alma 13: 5, 9
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the asame standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, who was prepared—
Dr. Mohler said: The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith.
Mike’s Response: The Filique Clause would suggest that this claim is not true, not to mention that again there is no documentation.
Dr. Mohler said: Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.
Mike’s response: “Rightly defined” by who? How do we know that this is the right way to define Christianity? The “Tradional Orthodox Christians” define it this way. So what? Did God tell the Orthodox Christians that this was the right way to define Christianity? If so where is Dr. Mohler’s documentations of that revelation?
posted July 31, 2007 at 12:54 am
I hope to not sound hostile in any way sir, but the name of our church is “The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints”. I don’t get what you are saying about “christian orthodoxy”. Isn’t that really just believing that Jesus lived and was the christ? And if we AREN’T christians, then why is that in our name?
The reason people call us “Mormon” is because Mormon was the man who abridged the Book of Mormon. The term “Mormon” is just a nickname for church members really.
Sincerely,
Tabitha Vaught
posted August 1, 2007 at 3:12 am
LDS “Gods” as Monarchic Monotheism: Blake Ostler
LDS “Gods” as Monarchic MonotheismBlake Oster’s writings explain that what some theologians take for multiple “Gods” in LDS thought are Monotheistic, in a form which he calls “Monarchic Monotheism”. It is made up of a “council of the gods”, all of whom are clearly completely subordinate to the Most-High God.He began teaching this in Volume one of his “Exploring Mormon Thought”, which has been used in graduate philosophy courses at BYU for some years. Love and Thanks, Steve St. ClairHere is the section on this subject:=====================================Subordinate “Gods”The very term “God” has seemed to include in it the notions of supremacy and perfection. Nevertheless, “God” or “Gods” is found in the Hebrew scriptures referring to beings that are not supreme. For example, there are divinities who are inferior or subordinate or divinities only by permission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation or permission from the higher God. In the Hebrew scripture, a member of El’s court, angels and possibly gods of foreign nations are called gods in this sense. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as debar or the divine word or Wisdom, would belong to this class. In the New Testament, “the Word,” and “the Mediator,” are also used in this sense in the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is considered as divine and meriting worship.However, Mormons refer to subordinate “gods” in two senses primarily. First, Mormons speak of the gods in the “council of the gods before the world was.” Thus, the Father is referred to as ruling in “the council of Eternal God of all other gods” (D&C 121:32); and the book of Abraham states that “the gods organized and formed the heaven and the earth” (Abraham 4:1). This use of the word “gods” is essentially equivalent to the Old Testament usage that refers to Yahweh or to Yahweh Elohim planning with and ruling over a council of gods who are subordinate to him. As Hans-Joachim Kraus observed:In the heavenly world Yahweh, enthroned as God and king, is sur- rounded by powers who honor, praise and serve him. Israel borrowed from the Canaanite-Syrian world the well-attested concept of a pan- theon of gods and godlike beings who surround the supreme God, the ruler and monarch. In Psalm 29:1-2 the bene elohim (“sons of God”) give honor to Yahweh. They are subordinate heavenly beings stripped of theirpower, who are totally dependent on Yahweh and no longer possess any independent divine nature. In Job and the Psalter, powers of this sort are called bene elohim, elim, or qedushim (“sons of God,” “gods,” and “holy •ones,” Job I:6ff; Ps. 58:1; • 8:5; 86:8). But Yahweh alone is the highest God CElyon) and king. . . . In Psalm 82 we have a clear example of the idea of a “council of gods.”. . . “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holdsjudgment:’ The “high- est god” is the judge. The gods (elohim) are his attendants. They are wit- nesses in the forum which Yahweh rules alone, and in which he possesses judicial authority. We might term the cheduth-el “Yahweh’s heavenly court.” All of the gods and powers of the people are in his service.In later volumes of his multi-volume work, Blake Ostler will demonstrate conclusively that the beliefs of First-Temple Judaism (the Old Testament period), Second-Temple Judaism, the New Testament period, and early Christianity continue to clearly describe God or the Godhead in identical terms.Here is an excerpt from his chapter on Second Temple Judaism:============================Monotheism and the Hierarchy of Divine Beings in Second Temple JudaismThe view that there was a hierarchy of divine beings, with the one God as the Most High accompanied by a principal divine agent second only in authority to God surrounded by a court of divine beings who serve in the Holy of Holies in the highest heaven was universal in Second Temple Judaism – the Judaism that gave rise to Christianity. The council of gods continued in this form throughout the period that gave rise to Christianity. Monotheism was not threatened by the view that there are numerous divine beings and even those who are called “gods” because it was understood that the Most High was the one God. Moreover, it was commonly believed that the divine glory could be shared by exalted humans. Indeed, it was a very common belief that humans could ascend to the throne of God and be transformed glory for glory into the same divine status as the heavenly beings by participating in the rites of washing, anointing and investiture preparatory to officiating as a priest and king in the heavenly Temple where God resides.15.1 Jewish Views of the Hierarchy of Divine Beings. Was Second Temple Judaism characterized by the same view of God that was prominent in pre-exilic texts of a head God presiding in the council of the sons of God? On the one hand, there are those who maintain that Second Temple Judaism is characterized by the same view of God(s) that prevailed in the pre-exilic Israel and that I have argued continued even in Second Isaiah and the exile. Notwithstanding language that poetically exaggerates the difference between the gods and Yahweh by asserting that they are nothing and that Yahweh will not even recognize their existence, the notion of the council of Yahweh continued throughout this period. The point at which we leave Israelite monarchical monotheism is thus the very place where we can start to elucidate the beliefs of Second Temple Jews. Larry Hurtado summarizes the evidence regarding Second Temple “Jewish monotheism” as follows:I propose that Jewish monotheism can be taken as constituting a distinctive version of the commonly-attested belief structure described by Nilsson as involving a “high god” who presides over other deities. The God of Israel presides over a court of heavenly beings who are likened to him (as is reflected in, e.g., the OT term for them “sons of God”). In pagan versions, too, the high god can be described as father and source of the other divine beings, and as utterly superior to them. In this sense, Jewish (and Christian) monotheism, whatever its distinctives, shows its historical links with the larger religious environment of the ancient world. There are distinctives of the Jewish version, however, both in beliefs and, even more emphatically in religious practice. As Nilsson has shown, in pagan versions often the high god is posited but not really known. Indeed, in some cases (particularly in Greek philosophical traditions), it is emphasized that the high god cannot be known. Accordingly, often one does not expect to relate directly to the high god or address this deity directly in worship or petition. In Greco-Roman Jewish belief, however, the high god is known as the God of Israel, whose ways and nature are revealed in the Scriptures of Israel.John Collins observed: “By nearly all accounts, at the end of the first century C.E. strict monotheism had long been one of the pillars of Judaism.” However, he quickly corrects this mis-perception: “Jewish monotheism, which gave birth to the Christian movement, was not as clear-cut and simple as is generally believed. Several kinds of quasi-divine figures appear in Jewish texts from the Hellenistic period that seem to call for some qualifications of the idea of monotheism.”2 Peter Hayman reached a similar conclusion: “It is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God. From the book of Daniel on, nearly every variety of Judaism maintained the pattern of the sup
reme God plus his viceregent/vizier…. Needless to say, this situation left many Jews confused, especially about the identity of the number two in the hierarchy.” A similar view, which I propose to defend here, is elucidated by Adela Yarbro Collins. Collins maintains that there may have been some who in fact had a “strict” view of monotheism in Second Temple Judaism, but there was a good deal of diversity in thought. The view that there was only one God who had a fulness of divinity, but that there were also other beings who possessed divinity on a continuum of divinity, with some divine beings have a greater fulness of divinity and others less, was prominent in Second Temple Judaism. Adela Collins stated:An abstract and strictly monotheistic theology was not, however, shared by all Jewish groups in the first century C.E.. Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon solved the philosophical problem, raised by Greek philosophy, of how a transcendent god could create and interact with the material world by positing an intermediary being, Wisdom or the Logos, whom Philo could describe as “a second god.” The Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a Palestinian Jewish ultra-observant group which favored the Hebrew language, could speak of a plurality of ‘gods’ (V X – ’elim). Not only that, but the biblical divine name ‘Elohim’, which is equivalent to the generic Hebrew word for ‘god’ (‘th – El), is attributed to an angel in the fragmentary Melchizedek scroll. The evidence implies that the strict monotheism of the Deuteronomic literature had already been ‘stretched’ or even ignored in much of the literature of Second Temple Judaism. Many Jews of that period evidently did not conceive of God as absolutely unique in a metaphysical sense. Instead, they seem to have placed the deity at the top of a pyramid, so to speak, of divine beings who were the agents of God in creating, sustaining and interacting with all things.==========================Here is an excerpt his chapter on the New Testament, in which he demonstrates that the relationship between the Father and the Son were seen as a continuation of the “Monarchic Monotheistic” approach:============================The Relation of Father and the Son:Christological Monarchic Monotheism in the New TestamentThe titles and roles attributed to Christ are given content and function within the culture of honor and shame. Although Christ is divine he is not identical to the one God, the Father. He is given a status of honor by God as the sole mediator through whom all must approach God as patron and king because he completed his mission of redemption that had been assigned to him by the Father. Jesus Christ is thus honored with the highest honor that God as patron and king of the universe can bestow upon him – status at his own right hand as God’s Son and heir to all that God has and is, including receiving the Name that is above all other names. He is recognized as God’s chief agent whose will is one with God’s will and Christ’s acts are honored as the acts of God Himself. God shares his glory and honor with Christ so that Christ is the sole means of salvation as the mediator/broker of relationship with God. Because Christ is the heir to the throne, God actually honors Christ by sharing the kingship and rule of the universe with Christ. Because Christ is the mediator/broker of the covenant relationship that Israel had been elected to in prior times, the only way to approach God is through Christ. Thus, early Christians honored the Father by honoring Christ. Such honor is shown by worshiping the Father through adoration of Christ, and praying to the Father and performing saving rituals such as baptism in the name of Christ. Because Christ is the only mediator/broker of the covenant relationship with the Father, it is necessary to recognize Christ as “the Lord” acclaimed by the one God.Perhaps the most prominent feature of Christian scriptural interpretation of the relation of the Father to the Son is the practice of identifying Old Testament scriptures that refer to two divine beings – and even two distinct heavenly figures who are both referred to as “God” in Hebrews and the gospel of John. It is a practice that is present throughout the New Testament and became prominent even in later Christian scriptural arguments as demonstrated by Justin Martyr.16.1 Acts 2:30-36: Christ as Lord at God’s Right Hand. The imagery and language of monarchy and enthronement were the focus of the earliest Christian declarations of Christ’s relation to the one God. We see this intense belief in the exaltation and enthronement of Jesus in the Christian reliance on the declaration of Psalm 110:1-2 that Christ had been exalted and honored to sit enthroned at the right hand of God as “Lord”:30.But since [King David] was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn an oath to him, that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne;31. He foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld, nor did his flesh see corruption.32. God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses.33. Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you [both] see and hear.34. For David did not go up into heaven: but he himself said:Ps. 110 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,“Sit at my right hand,35. until I make your enemies your footstool.”’36. Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus Christ whom you crucified.. (Acts. 2:30-36 NAB)In this remarkable passage we have an echo of the belief of the earliest Christians stated and summarized publicly for the first time after the resurrection. Jesus is the Messiah as the descendant of David. God the Father has vindicated Jesus’s claim to be king through the resurrection which culminated in the Father’s exalting him and placing him on a throne at His own right hand. It is of the utmost importance to note that in exalting Christ as his co-regent and newly coronated king of Israel, the Father has also given Jesus Christ an honorific title that alluded to God’s own name – the name “Lord.” Whenever the word YHWH appeared in the Old Testament Hebrew texts, the text was read aloud by substituting “Adonai,” the Hebrew honorific title meaning “Lord.” The Greek translation known as the Septuagint or LXX translated both YHWH and Adonai as Kyrios (Aramaic Merah), meaning “Lord.” For those in the audience listening to this claim, they could only have understood that Jesus was coronated at his resurrection with the greatest honor that can be bestowed on a person – the honor of being made an heir and given the name of the benefactor and king. “Lord” functions in the dual capacity having connotations both as a title of honor and also as sharing the divine name because Christ has been declared to be God’s heir and son. In the context of the covenant with David, those present heard a claim that Jesus is the heir to the throne of David and can be called “Lord” because of this inheritance. However, they also would have heard more – Christ shares the divine glory because he shares the divine name behind the title “Lord,” Adonai (Aramaic merah). Christ is recognized as a king and “Lord” second only to God because he is enthroned on his right hand – the place of the co-regent or vizier to the king.1 To be placed at the right hand of the patron king was the highest honor that could be bestowed upon a member of the kingdom. However, Christ is not merely the vizier or co-regent; he is the heir to the throne and recipient of the divine name “Lord
221; – the one who now reigns with God. The Father is not abdicating the throne of heaven to his son as a successor heir; rather, he is sharing the co-rule of heavens and earth with Jesus Christ.This allusion to Psalm 110 is all the more remarkable because its use appears to be utterly unique in the literature of Second Temple Judaism. However, Psalm 110 is the Old Testament text most often cited throughout the New Testament and which was used by virtually all early Christian writers in the first 100 years to explain the status of Jesus and his relation to the Father.3 The interest that Psalm 110 held for the earliest disciples of Christ was that it declared Christ at once to be an heir to the throne of David and also raises him to the right hand of the throne of God. However, it also served the Christian message because it referred to two “Lords” whereby the Lord God honored another as “Lord” by bestowing on Christ the very honorific title by which God referred to himself. The notion suggested by Bauckham that allusions to Psalm 110 envision Christ on the very throne of God misrepresents Christ’s status. Christ is not seated on the throne of God; rather, Christ is divine vizier exalted by God to sit at his right hand.4 Bauckham misses the fact that Psalm 110 was used by Christians precisely because Yahweh, “the Lord,” exalts another as “my Lord.” It is the very fact that two distinct figures are referred to that made it amenable to Christian exegesis.
posted August 1, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Tabitha,
Not to sound glib, but if I started a church called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Voodoo Practitioners” could I claim to be a Christian by the inclusion of Jesus in my church title?
I’m sorry, that was smart-alecky. But you get my drift.
Anyway, I’ve thought about this long and hard, and prayed hard about this for the past few days. In the end, I do not care what subgroup a church wants to belong to. If the Mormon church wants to consider itself ‘Christian’, then so be it. In the end, it will be Christ Himself who separates the sheep from the goats, so titles here on earth are meaningless, anyway. The early church was more often called ‘the Way’ than Christians, anyway, and they referred to themselves as ‘believers.’
Salvation is available to all who will humble themselves before God, confess the name of Jesus as Lord, be obedient in baptism, and rise to live a new life by the power of the Holy Spirit which is a gift given at conversion. The Bible says there will be “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28. Therefore, whatever titles we give ourselves down here on earth will be meaningless in heaven.
Rejoice in the Lord always, again I say Rejoice!
posted August 2, 2007 at 2:29 am
Chief says: Rejoice in the Lord always, again I say Rejoice!
Mike says: I do Chief. I do.
posted August 4, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I don’t want to sound judgemental, but really, there is nothing wrong with judging people — according to the Bible, we are told to use “righteous judgement” as in deciding each and every day to put GOOD things into our body, instead of things that could defile it.
With that said, I find your “voodoo” comment very offensive and sadly lacking in any intellectual comment whatsoever. My 12-year-old daughter read what you said, and told me, “He must not have much good in his brain if that’s all that can come out of it”….. OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES.
Now, WHO are YOU to judge 13 MILLION people and say that we aren’t Christians simply because we don’t fit whatever slim-fitting mold YOU try to shove us into? “By their fruits ye shall know them”, and I say to you, dear Sir, your judgement on a people who have only done good wherever they go (thus the “good fruits”) will hang heavy over your OWN head someday when YOU get a chance, as we ALL will, to stand at the feet of Christ and acknowledge Him as our Lord and Savior — because it is only through Him, by Him, and because of His ultimate sacrifice that we will all be able to be risen and live forever as He promised…… AND He will hold you accountable for all of the words that have proceedeth out of your mouth — any good, lovely, praiseworthy, or of good report, or any of the opposite for that matter, He will hold you to answer for. Directly to Him.
You won’t have this earthly whatever-collegiate-degree to hide behind — the truth will be there to speak for itself.
So, instead of trying your best to drag down a religion that has been trashed by many people more intellectual than yourself, higher in power even, and NONE of them have made even a dent!, why don’t you use your time to build UP people? Now THERE’S a thought! Didn’t your MOTHER ever tell you while you were growing up that if you couldn’t say something good about someone, to just keep the flippin’ mouth shut so nothing bad would come out? You would feel much better about yourself — and that is advice that children receive in many parts of this world, where the Latter-Day-Saints live — to be GOOD, God-fearing, God-loving people, and to do good in their daily lives.
Maybe you should attend a LDS Church service and see just WHO is is they worship? You, Sir, appear to have gotten your information from an otherewise untrustworthy source. It doesn’t look like you know WHAT this religion believes in.
And sweet Tabitha already spoke her piece, but if she reads this, I hope she adds any other thoughts she might have.
posted August 7, 2007 at 9:15 am
Here is my question:
A difference frequently underscored by Christians who oppose Mormonism, is that “traditional” Christianity believes Christ forgives all sins, and all one needs to access the grace of Christ is to call on Him to save us. (From what I understand, Catholicism demands confession of the sin, and Mormonism demands repentance and a changed life.)
In essence, traditional Christianity claims that being saved is achieved merely by calling on Christ, and not by anything we do, no matter how good, no matter how evil. I’ve had this point handed to me again and again by Christians trying to convince me of the error of my Mormon faith.
Now, here is my question: If a belief in Christ is all that’s needed, and if asking for His mercy to save us is all that is needed for his grace and mercy, then why is it that Mormons are in such trouble? Why are so many traditional Christians claiming to be concerned for the souls of Mormons?
Mormons lead very Christian lives. They believe in the Ten Commandments, and in all the teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. They have strong families and are more faithful in living by Christian morals and ideals than perhaps any other denomination except the Amish. (Studies verify this.) They pray to God, and believe in the atonement of Christ.
Why wouldn’t the saving power of Christ be thus extended to us, to mistaken Mormons? (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mormonism is indeed false.) If Mormons are truly deceived, and yet believe in Christ, what sin are they committing that they cannot or would not be forgiven of by Christ? If their hearts are sincere, though their brains may be mistaken, why would not the merciful savior of the world extend His mercy unto them as well?
I have had it confirmed to me again and again that Christ will save the liar, the abuser, the hate-filled soul, the adulterer, and even the murderer, who turns to Christ and asks for salvation. And yet the Mormon who does not the same is still going to Hell. How is it that various Christian denominations can be different on points of doctrine (some being clearly mistaken), and evil people can do truly awful things, and all have access to Christ’s saving power, but good and yet “mistaken” Mormons are doomed to eternal punishment?
The mainstream Christian belief that Mormon souls are endangered and condemned does not make sense, and is not consistent with traditional Christian belief on the fate of any other sinner. For some odd reason, Mormons have been singled-out by traditional Christians as the only Christ-believing people who shall not be forgiven if, indeed, they are mistaken on points of doctrine. I know of no other Jesus-believing people so condemned, regardless of their unorthodox doctrines.
Is being a “deceived Mormon” really an unforgivable, unredeemable sin? Are those who have done horrible things yet made Christ their Savior really more Christian than good, honorable Mormons who have made Christ their Savior? Or could it be that their is something else about Mormonism (like its growth and success) that singles-out Mormons for unusual punishment and condemnation by other Christian theologians and clergy?
posted August 7, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Kari,
I have to admit that I am puzzled by the anger evident in your message. I apologized for my ‘voodoo’ comment, although I put it in there for good reason: Tabitha was saying that the Mormon church is Christian because it has ‘Jesus Christ’ in it’s name, and I was saying that a name is not necessarily indicative of what lies underneath. Haven’t you ever heard of the phrase, “Don’t judge a book by its cover?”
I am especially puzzled because in the body of my post I said titles will be worthless in the end, anyway. Christ Himself will be separating the sheep from the goats, and our works will be judged and either rewarded or burned up. I also said that if Mormons want to call themselves Christians, so be it. I did not damn them to hell or cast any other sort of judgment, as it is not mine to judge men’s hearts, anyway. So I don’t know what in my post you considered ‘bad’. If I offended you, I apologize, but in re-reading what I wrote I fail to see where I came off as condemning or judgmental. All I said was Christ will be the judge and earthly titles will be meaningless in heaven. Exactly where did I eviscerate your faith or your church?
Here is the sum of what I am trying to say, from Ecclesiastes 12:
The Conclusion of the Matter
9 Not only was the Teacher wise, but also he imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. 10 The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true.
11 The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one Shepherd. 12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
FOR GOD WILL BRING EVERY DEED INTO JUDGMENT, INCLUDING EVERY HIDDEN THING, WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR EVIL – Food for thought for everyone who is teaching doctrine.
God bless…
posted August 7, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Quin,
You posted “Is being a ‘deceived Mormon’ really an unforgivable, unredeemable sin? Are those who have done horrible things yet made Christ their Savior really more Christian than good, honorable Mormons who have made Christ their Savior? Or could it be that their is something else about Mormonism (like its growth and success) that singles-out Mormons for unusual punishment and condemnation by other Christian theologians and clergy?”
Good post, and good questions. I don’t really have the answers. I guess again it all comes back to who we believe Jesus is, and whether Mormons worship the Jesus revealed in the Bible or the Jesus revealed in the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PGP. All that I can tell you is that who you believe Jesus is DOES matter.
Jesus asked His disciples on one occasion, “Who do people say that I am?” He was answered Elijah, John the Baptist, or another one of the prophets. He then asked them, “Who do you say that I am?”, where we get Peter’s great confession, “You are the Christ.” It mattered to Jesus back then who we think He is, and it matters just as much to Him today. That is why some people on this thread have emphasized that it is not enough to just say “I follow Christ”, but it matters on who you believe that Christ is that you follow.
So is being a ‘deceived Mormon’ an unforgivable sin? No, I don’t think so. I have stated many times in this thread that I whole-heartedly believe there will be plenty of Mormons in paradise. Just be sure that you know that it is not your ‘good, honorable living’ that got you there, but your faith in Jesus and what He did for us in sacrificing Himself for us, taking on the punishment we deserve. Do I think that a person can be a heathen all of his life and then accept Christ right before death and be saved? Yes, I do. Is that fair? Maybe not to the human mind, but we don’t get to make that decision. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross, and that kind of seals it for me. Will that person have the rewards, or the position in heaven that a lifelong righteous person will have? I don’t think so, because that righteous person has been laying up for themselves treasures in heaven. But the heathen convert will be in heaven.
I myself am not frightened by or jealous of the success of the LDS church. I have spoken to several pairs of missionaries over the past few months; I invite them into my home, and we have pleasant, relaxing conversations that are very enjoyable to me. They have always been very polite, personable, and well-spoken. The LDS currently has somewhere around 13 million members. The house churches of China boast over 100 million members, and that number is growing phenomenally in the face of virulent persecution. The Christian faith is growing in Asia, Africa, and even the Middle East, all in the face of often violent opposition and persecution. [Listen to Voice of the Martyrs to get an idea on the conditions our brothers and sisters face overseas.] The reason that it is singled out nowadays by Christian leaders and clergy is that the Mormon church, after generations of separating themselves from the word ‘Christian’, is now fighting full tilt to be known as a Christian church. Since many Christian denominations consider Mormonism to be a false gospel, they would understandably push back on that notion.
If you want to see true church apostasy, look at Europe, where on average only 3%-8% of the entire population goes to church consistently.
Peace and joy to you, my friend…
posted August 7, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Chief : The reason that it is singled out nowadays by Christian leaders and clergy is that the Mormon church, after generations of separating themselves from the word ‘Christian’, is now fighting full tilt to be known as a Christian church.
GB: That statement is demonstrably false. The “Mormon church” has always maintained that it is a “Christian” church.
posted August 7, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Chief,
It is the anti-mormons who have recently dreamed up this canard, and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker.
posted August 8, 2007 at 3:28 am
Chief,
Here is a chapter of the Book of Mormon, that teaches of Christ, for your consideration, including the link so you can reference the topical guide and footnotes:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2
THE SECOND BOOK OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 2
Redemption cometh through the Holy Messiah—Freedom of choice (agency) is essential to existence and progression—Adam fell that men might be—Men are free to choose liberty and eternal life. Between 588 and 570 B.C.
1 And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my afirst-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.
2 Nevertheless, Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine aafflictions for thy gain.
3 Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be aspent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer; for thou hast bbeheld that in the cfulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men.
4 And thou hast abeheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and bsalvation is cfree.
5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they aknow good from evil. And the blaw is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is cjustified; or, by the law men are dcut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.
6 Wherefore, aredemption cometh in and through the bHoly cMessiah; for he is full of dgrace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a asacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto bnone else can the cends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, asave it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who blayeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the cresurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make aintercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
10 And because of the intercession for aall, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be bjudged of him according to the truth and choliness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the dpunishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the eatonement—
11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and alearning; for there is a God, and he hath bcreated all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be cacted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal apurposes in the end of man, after he had bcreated our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the cfowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the dforbidden efruit in fopposition to the gtree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should aact for himself. Wherefore, man could not bact for himself save it should be that he was centiced by the one or the other.
17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an aangel of God, according to that which is written, had bfallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a cdevil, having sought that which was evil before God.
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he asought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all blies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, cknowing good and evil.
19 And after Adam and Eve had apartaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of bEden, to till the earth.
20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the afamily of all the earth.
21 And the days of the children of amen were prolonged, according to the bwill of God, that they might crepent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of dprobation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were elost, because of the transgression of their parents.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no achildren; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no bjoy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no csin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who aknoweth all things.
25 aAdam bfell that men might be; and men care, that they might have djoy.
26 And the aMessiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may bredeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are credeemed from the fall they have become dfree forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the elaw at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are afree according to the bflesh; and call things are dgiven them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to echoose fliberty and eternal glife, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be hmiserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great aMediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the aevil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to bcaptivate, to bring you down to chell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.
30 I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting awelfare of your souls. Amen.
posted August 9, 2007 at 12:24 am
GB and Mike,
I have never asserted that the LDS did not teach Christ, or that Christ was not found in the LDS scriptures. It is, however, a matter of historical record that the LDS did not characterize itself as a “Christian” church or denomination in its earlier days. The words “Jesus Christ” was not included in the church name at all for a number of years, being the Church of the Latter-Day Saints. Even the website you so often point to is http://www.lds.com, not http://www.cjclds.com.
Remember, the Koran teaches about Jesus as well, in several suras, and I do not consider it a Christian Scripture, either. You can even find Jesus’ name in some of the later suttras of Buddhism.
I find it interesting that 2 Nep 2:25 says that Adam fell that men might be, as if the fall of man was a good thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul put it this way; “as sin entered the world through a single man, and death by sin, so death passed on to all men, for all have sinned.” Physical death is just one of the sad legacies that Adam left us. The fall of Adam is not to be celebrated, in my opinion, but regarded as a shameful act that made the death of Christ necessary.
Peace be unto you, my friends, and good night…
posted August 9, 2007 at 11:57 am
Chief: It is, however, a matter of historical record that the LDS did not characterize itself as a “Christian” church or denomination in its earlier days
GB: As I said before “That statement is demonstrably false. The “Mormon church” has always maintained that it is a “Christian” church.”
And, “It is the anti-mormons who have recently dreamed up this canard, and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker.”
I wanted to avoid a long post but your continued willful ignorance on this subject forces my hand.
1830
“They call themselves the church of Christ, and the only church of Christ. All professing Christians who do not adhere to their system, they consider as formalists; ‘having the form of Godliness, but denying the power’”. (Rev. John Sherer to Absalom Peters, 18 November 1830, published in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996-2003), 5 vols, 4:93.)
1831
“Old Joe . . . and several others . . . admitted [that the new faith] was an improvement in Christianity”. (James G. Bennett, Morning Courier and New York Enquirer, 31 August 1831.)
1832
The Mormonites “say the Millennium is soon to commence and that Christ is to come personally and take up His residence with them. . . . In its general principles this sect entirely coincide with others which have from time to time sprung up in Christendom”. (The Farmer’s Herald, vol. 4, no. 49, 6 June 1832 [Johnsbury, Vermont])
1833
There is “a civil war between the Mormonites and their brother Christians”. (Liberal Advocate, vol. 3, no. 6, 30 December 1833 [Rochester, New York])
1834
“Brother Joseph . . . went on to show the brethren how wicked and unchristianlike such conduct [among them] appeared before the eyes of truth and justice”. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 2:83.)
1835
“the doctrine promulgated by the ‘latter day Christians’ in the newly discovered Bible”. (Painesville Telegraph, vol. 1, no. 35, 4 September 1835 [Painesville, Ohio])
1836
“This morning a minister from Conne[c]ticut by the name of John W. Olived called at my house . . . . [He] asked me wherein we differ from other Christian denomination[s]”. (Dean C. Jesse, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 144. ISBN 1573457876.)
1836
“they have the appearance of being devout Christians. . . . They call themselves ‘Latter-day Saints,’ and profess to be the only true church, to have the only gospel order, consisting of apostles, elders, bishops, etc., etc., which several orders of the Christian hierarchy have been distinctly brought to light in the Book of Mormon”. (The New York Evangelist, vol. 6, no. 15, 9 April 1836; letter written on 1 April 1836 by James H. Eells who lived in Elyra, Ohio)
1837
“a large society of Christians who style themselves ‘Latter-day Saints’ or Mormons.” (Painesville Republican, vol. 1, no. 31, 15 June 1837).
1838
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”. (Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 121. ISBN 087579243X.)
1839
“This sect took its rise, A. D. 1830, in the county of Ontario, and State of New York. In April of that year, the society was organized as a Christian Church”. (Francis G. Bishop, Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints (Blum and Son, Salem, Massachusetts 1839): 2.)
1839
The Mormons “were singing a hymn as other good Christians are wont to do . . . . [One of them offered] a very good Christian prayer . . . . [which petitioned that the Mormons might have] Christian fortitude.” (Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer, vol. 3, no. 17, 27 July 1839)
1840
“We want no religion but pure Christianity”. (Parley P. Pratt, Plain Facts (Manchester, England: W. R. Thomas, 1840), 6.)
1840
The citizens of Nauvoo are “a people, professing to be Christians.” (Quincy Whig, vol. 3, no. 13, 25 July 1840).
1840
The Mormons retain “many truths which are held in common by different denominations of Christians.” (The Alton Telegraph, vol. 5, no. 46, 14 November 1840).
1841
“I understood from [the Mormons] as follows, . . . that they did not discard the Bible as used by other Christian sects”. (“Nauvoo Mormon Religion,” Times and Seasons 2/8 (15 February 1841): 324. reprint of an article from the Upper Mississippian)
1842
“the great Christian city of Nauvoo”. (Cited by Helen Mar Whitney, Woman’s Exponent 10/13 (1 December 1881): 97–99. Available in Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1997), 149. ISBN 1570083576. ISBN 978-1570083570.)
1842
Mormons “are Christians in the fullest sense of the term, believing in the Old and New Testaments.” (The New York Herald, vol. 7, no. 419, 16 May 1842).
1842
Mormons are described as – “A Christian sect in Illinois.” (Alton Telegraph and Democratic Review, vol. 7, no. 25, 18 June 1842; emphasis in original).
1842
“All these letters and documents [about the Mormons] disclose a most extraordinary movement in human affairs. What they mean we can hardly tell, but is it not time for some great religious revolution, as radical as Luther’s, to take place in the Christian world?…Unlike all other Christian sects, they adopt at once all the modern improvements of society, in art and literature; and from their singular religious faith give the highest enthusiasm to the movement at large. There is nothing odd, or singular, or absurd about them.” (“Wonderful Progress of Joe Smith, the Modern Mahomet.—Spread of the Mormon Faith, and a New Religious Revolution at Hand,” N.Y. Herald (17 June 1842); emphasis added). (Chicago Democrat, May 1842; editorial by John Wentworth)
1842
“Mr. Whitney then asked if we acknowledged any to be Christians except those who embraced our doctrines and joined our church.” (Orson Hyde letter, Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 18, 15 July 1842, 849).
1842
A Baptist complained that a Church preacher “declined making an honest confession of those peculiarities which separate them as widely from the Baptists, as from every other denomination of the christian church.” (“Difference Between the Baptists & Latter-day Saints,” Times and Seasons 3/23 (1 October 1843): 931–932. )
1843
“So far we are agreed with other Christian denominations. They all preach faith and repentance. The gospel requires baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, which is the meaning of the word in the original language—namely, to bury or immerse”. (Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 314.)
1843
Joseph Smith, in a public discourse, compared the Mormons to other denominations of Christians. (New York Spectator, vol. 46, no. 46, 23 August 1843).
1844
The Mormons are “calling themselves Christians . . . . Christians, as they claim to be.” (The Warsaw Signal, NS no. 4, no. 121, 6 March 1844).
1844
“The [Saturday] Courier should for the sake of truth and consistency, strike its flag of neutrality in RELIGION, while it wages a war of extermination against the Mormons; the only sect in Christendom, who in this nineteenth century can exhibit the irresistible evidence of martyrdom, in support of its cause”. (“Magna est veritas, et praevalebit’ (Not sure of translation vol=5,” Times and Seasons {{{vol}}}/15 (15 August 1844): 621.)
1853
Now, we ARE believers in the Bible, and in consequence of our unshaken faith in its precepts, doctrine, and prophecy, may be, attributed “the strangeness of our course,” and the unwarrantable conduct of many towards this people. Come, my brother Presbyterian; come, my brother professors of every persuasion of long standing and popular distinction in the world, who are dubbed with the word “ORTHODOX;” come, we are all good Christians; I find no fault with you—why should you find fault with me? (Brigham Young, “Effects and Privileges of the Gospel,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt (24 July 1853), Vol. 1 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1854), 237.)
1854
“Mormonites . . . . call themselves Christians, it is true” (The Daily Globe, vol. 6, no. 261, 5 October 1854).
1859
We, as Christians, are divided and subdivided into many systems varying in doctrinal points. This one says, “I am right;” and that one says, “I am right;” another rises up and varies, more or less, from the doctrines of the Church he has left, and says he is right. (Brigham Young, “Government of God,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt, J.V. Long and others, (22 May 1859), Vol. 7 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1860), 148.; Brigham Young 9/13 Deseret News (1 June 1859): 104.)
1861
“…who is there that was not startled when he heard that a sect, affecting to be Christian beyond all other sects, which had sprung up in broad day from admidst the civilization of the United States…” (Juley Remy, Journey to Great Salt Lake City (1861), 2:82–83; cited by B. Carmon Hardy (editor), Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its origin, practice and demise, Vol. 9 of Kingdom in the West Series: The Mormons and the American Frontier (series editor Will Bagley), (Norman, Oklahoma: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 2007), 195. ISBN 0870623443. ISBN 978-0870623448.)
1863
Should you ask why we differ from other Christians…Are all this people, in the Scriptural sense, Christians? They should be. Do they all serve God with an undivided heart? They should. Many of them do, seeking daily to do his will. (Brigham Young, “Advice To California Emigrants. — The Principles Of The Gospel, etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt and J.V. Long, (8 July 1863), Vol. 10 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1865), 230–231.)
1864
The Latter-day Saints differ from their Christian brethren. (Brigham Young, “Difference Of Ideas Entertained Respecting God, etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt and J.V. Long, (31 July 1863), Vol. 10 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1865), 318–319.)
1866
Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. (Brigham Young, “Remarks by President Brigham Young,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt, E.L. Sloan, and D.W. Evans, (19 August 1866), Vol. 11 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1867), 268.)
1866
President B. Young preached a very interesting and instructive discourse, in which he showed that professing Christians believe all that the Jews believe, which appertains to life and salvation, and have accepted principles in advance of the Jews, including faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and that the Latter-day Saints receive all believed in by other professing Christians, appertaining to life and salvation, accepting, as a part of their religious faith, principles in advance of them which are taught in the Scriptures. He touched upon the history of the Jewish people, showing the penalties which they had incurred by disobedience to the commandments of God, and pointing to the promises made to the patriarchal fathers concerning them. And deduced that if the condition of professing Christians is to-day better than that of the Jews, for believing more of the revelations of God, so the condition of the Saints is preferable to that of the other inhabitants of Christendom, in accepting all the revelations which the Lord has been pleased to give. (Brigham Young, Deseret News Weekly 15/109 (4 March 1866): page?.; cited in Eldon Watson (editor), Brigham Young Addresses (1982), 5:32.)
1866
“On one occasion one of the native brethren who had been persecuted, claimed his rights as a Swiss citizen, and the question was brought up in the Swiss Congress, Are the ‘Mormons’ Christians? After some discussion, the conclusion was arrived at that they were, and must accordingly be protected.” ( Millennial Star 28/12 (24 March 1866): 179.)
1870
Have you embraced truth, Latter-day Saints? Have you anything different from other Christians? (Brigham Young, “The Saints Are A Strange People Because They Practise What They Profess,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans and John Grimshaw, (20 February 1870), Vol. 13 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1871), 237–238.)
1871
If you should have visits here from those professing to be Christians, and they intimate a desire to preach to you, by all means invite them to do so. Accord to every reputable person who may visit you, and who may wish to occupy the stands of your meeting houses to preach to you, the privilege of doing so, no matter whether he be a Catholic, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, Free-will Baptist, Methodist, or whatever he may be; and if he wishes to speak to your children let him do so. Of course you have the power to correct whatever false teachings or impressions, if any, your children may hear or receive. I say to parents, place your children, as far as you [p.196] have an opportunity to do so, in a position or situation to learn everything in the world that is worth learning. You will probably have what is called a Christian Church here; they will not admit that we are Christians, but they cannot think us further from the plan of salvation as revealed from heaven than we know them to be, so we are even on that ground, as far as it goes. (Brigham Young, “Discourse by President Brigham Young,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, J.Q. Cannon and Julia Young, (3 June 1871), Vol. 14 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1872), 195–196. ; Brigham Young, “Discourse by President Brigham Young,” Millennial Star 33/27 (4 July 1871): 418–420.; DNW 20:235. )
We are preaching to the people far and near; our Elders are traveling through the earth; strangers are coming here, and we are declaring to them that the Gospel of the Son of God is true. Whether they believe or not, it is no matter. That book (the Bible)contains the words of the Almighty…. I know of the bright promises which he gave to his disciples anciently. I live in the possession of them, and glory in them and in the cross of Christ, and in the beauty and holiness that he has revealed for the salvation and exaltation of the children of men. I do wish we would live to them, and may the Lord help us. (Brigham Young, “Remarks by President Brigham Young,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, J.Q. Cannon and Julia Young, (27 August 1871), Vol. 14 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1872), 26–27. ; Discourse by President Brigham Young 20/31 Deseret News (6 September 1871): 357–358.)
1872
We, as Christians, believe in God, in Christ and in his atonement, in repentance and obedience, and in receiving the Spirit. (Brigham Young, “Riches — Hurry — Fashion — Helping The Poor — Mysteries,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, J.Q. Cannon and Julia Young, (26 May 1872), Vol. 15 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1873), 42.)
“we take the liberty to believe the Bible, which our fellow Christians, generally throughout the world, profess to believe in…” (John Taylor, “Discourse by Elder John Taylor,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, J.Q. Cannon and Julia Young, (3 March 1872), Vol. 14 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1872), 338. Discourse by Elder John Taylor 21/36 Deseret News (13 March 1872): 65, second column.)
“We are looking for him [i.e. Second coming of Christ]. The Christians of all denominations expect that he will appear in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. The Latter-day Saints expect this in common with all other Christians.” (Orson Pratt, “Discourse by Elder Orson Pratt,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, J.Q. Cannon and Julia Young, (10 March 10 1872), Vol. 14 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1872), 348. ; Orson Pratt 21/{{{num}}} Deseret News (20 March 1872): 77, fourth column.)
1876
These are only a few reflections, when we take into consideration our Christian religion. (Brigham Young, “Discourse By President Brigham Young,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, G.F. Gibbs, and others, (15 August 1876), Vol. 18 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1877), 217.)
Brother Cannon speaks of Christians. We are Christians professedly, according to our religion. (Brigham Young, “Discourse By President Brigham Young,” Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, G.F. Gibbs, and others, (17 September 1876), Vol. 18 (London: Latter-day Saint’s Book Depot, 1877), 231.)
“How shall we, as Christians, reconcile these words of our Savior with the reception everywhere given by the world to Messrs. Moody and Sankey? They are, professedly, Christian ministers, yet they are largely entertained by the world, extolled by the world, and apparently loved by the world….” (Editorial (Elder David McKenzie), “Christianity and Revivalism,” Millennial Star 38/10 (6 March 1876): 152.)
“But Joseph Smith reiterates the Savior’s promises. He has no fear of being proved a false teacher. He professes to be a Christian minister called and sent of God….”
(Editorial (Elder David McKenzie), “Gifts of the Holy Ghost,” Millennial Star 38/13 (27 March 1876): 200–201. )
“Immediate revelation was the life of primitive Christianity, and when that ceased to be given to men, Christianity waxed feeble, waned and died. With the restored Gospel came immediate revelation, and Christianity was born again upon the earth.” (Editorial (Elder David McKenzie), “Evidences of the Truth,” Millennial Star 38/14 (3 April 1876): 217.)
1881
We are a Christian community; we believe in God and in Jesus Christ… (Francis M. Lyman, General Conference, 5 April 5 1881, in, “{{{article}}},” Millennial Star 43/19 (9 May 1881): 292.)
1892
“What a singular sort of ‘Christian community’ that must be that will not tolerate an unorthodox Christian society in its midst!” (Editorial on citizens of Beaver Dam, Virginia removing Mormon Elders by force to another part of the state, Deseret News Weekly 45/13 (17 September 1892): 396.)
“The insinuation in this [written attack on the LDS by a Protestant minister in SLC] is to the effect that a ‘Mormon’ is not a Christian, and the ‘Mormon’ religion is not a Christian religion, and further that the Supreme Court of the United States has virtually so decided…. But if a ‘Mormon’ is not a Christian then there are no Christians in America…. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at least as fairly entitled to the appellation of a Christian as a member of the Presbyterian Church” (Deseret News Weekly 45/14 (24 September 1892): 441.)
“[with reverence to Revelation 1. 12] We accept—as all Christians do—that God inspired the words ‘to see the voice.’” (Deseret News Weekly 45/25 (10 December 1892): 780.)
1907
If it be true Christianity to accept Jesus Christ in person and his mission as divine; to revere him as the Son of God, the crucified and risen Lord, through whom alone mankind can attain salvation; to accept his teachings as a guide, to adopt as a standard and observe as a law the ethical code he promulgated; to comply with the requirements prescribed by him as essential to membership in his Church, namely, faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost,—if this be Christianity, then are we Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church. (First Presidency, “Address to the World,” Improvement Era (May 1907): 481–495.)
1956
We are not Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, and yet this disclaimer should not be taken to mean we are not Christian. You who heard the powerful address of President Clark this morning will know that we are Christians, for central to everything we believe and teach is our faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. We are grateful for our Judeo-Christian heritage, for the Holy Bible which we accept without reservation as the word of God, except as to some errors that have crept in through translations. (Hugh B. Brown, “Discourse,” Improvement Era (December 1956): 949–949.)
Clearly, the Church has “claimed” to be Christian for a long time, and even hostile critics realized it. To insist that this is a new, public relations move is false.
Critics use a self-serving and self-referential definition of “Christian” to exclude the LDS. They ignore the fact that many other Christians over the millennia would have disagreed with them on the same points, yet this does not disqualify these other believers from the family of “Christians.”
Claims that the Church has only recently been asserting its Christian status are false, as attested by LDS scripture, practice, doctrine, and public statements of its leadership and its early critics.
Ironically, many of those who attack the Church and its members for not being Christians show a distinct lack of the Christian virtues themselves:
There has been no end to opposition. There are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of us and of our history, some of it mean-spirited and certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Sometimes clergy, even ministerial organizations, oppose us. They do what we would never do. We do not attack or criticize or oppose others as they do us…Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down. (Boyd K. Packer, “A Defense and a Refuge,” Ensign (November 2006): 85–88.)
In summary,
This is another example where you (Chief) have trusted your anti-mormon sources which have been proven over and over again that they are untrustworthy.
When are you going to learn?
posted August 9, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Hello Chief,
You said, “I find it interesting that 2 Nep 2:25 says that Adam fell that men might be, [and men are that they might have joy] as if the fall of man was a good thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul put it this way; “as sin entered the world through a single man, and death by sin, so death passed on to all men, for all have sinned.” Physical death is just one of the sad legacies that Adam left us. The fall of Adam is not to be celebrated, in my opinion, but regarded as a shameful act that made the death of Christ necessary.”
By your own words, you minimize the role of Christ as Savior and Redeemer…
Genesis 3:5 “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” vs. 22, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…”
Adam and Eve’s act of ‘transgression’ brought about their ability to know Good from Evil by personal experience? That act also brought to them and ALL mankind, the need for a Savior. If not for the “Fall of Adam” would there ever have been a need for Jesus Christ? What would Jesus’s role have been if Adam and Eve had never partaken of the Fruit?
If a 5-yr old playing in the bathroom stumbles upon prescription medication and thinking it candy, overdoses and dies, is that child personally accountable for “stealing” medication? “Thou shalt not steal!” Will that child who is now dead, be forever consigned to Hell for breaking one of the Ten Commandments? Maybe in your reality, but NOT in mine. I and all other Mormons know that the Atonement of Christ covers such conditions, until one becomes “accountable” for their actions. In other words, Christ’s Atonement is for those who repent, following “willful” disobedience…
posted August 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Choose,
I think you are reading things into the account that are not there. God did not ‘plan’ for Adam and Eve to sin. He gave them a wonderful place to call home, a place free from the terrors of the fallen world we now live in. They were created immortal, as physical death was a curse of the fall. Jesus’ role in human history was that “He created all things and all things were created by him and for Him, and in Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1
And Adam and Eve were not 5-year olds who stumbled upon a medicine they didn’t know was fatal. Eve knew exactly what she was doing when she picked the fruit, and Adam stood by and watched her do it and then accepted some from her for himself. They willfully disobeyed God, because Satan had succeeded in tricking them into believing that they were somehow getting gyped, that God was holding something back from them, cheating them out of something wonderful. The resulting curse on the serpent, the woman, the man, and the ground is awful and tragic.
Did God know they would disobey? Yes, He did, if you believe He is omniscient, which I do. Did He want them to disobey, so He could put His plan of salvation into action? No, I don’t think so. I think God would much rather have had them obey Him and rebuke the serpent, and then this original sin thing would never have come into being. But events played out the way they did, and God was ready with His plan to eventually send His Son to die for us on the cross.
In my reality, Choose, a person is responsible for their own sins. If they accept Christ’s atonement for them, they will be saved. If not, they will be cast into outer darkness. Is that fair? I can’t say. Is it just? Yes, and God is nothing if not just.
Take care, and have a good night.
posted August 9, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Chief1989,
If, as you stated, and all your colleagues believe, God knows the end from the beginning (Omniscient)…why all the games? If He “Knows”…why waste time on this stage as puppets wondering about the final outcome?
If you knew every ‘nit-noid’ about a hollywood show…are you going to sit there and watch it play out anyway? Boring…
Better yet, why allow so much suffering, pain, anguish and evil to play out if the outcome is already determined? Is this your God’s idea of “fun”?
If our “fate” is sealed…what’s the point? Just pick the “A” team and throw the rest out! If the outcome is Death, twisting the knife in slow and deep is just plain perverted…
Either you thoughts about God are skewed…or we’re all just so much stardust like Carl Sagan said!!!
posted August 10, 2007 at 11:23 am
Chief,
So once again the bilge that you presented (gotten from you anti-mormon sources) has been refuted, and you fail to ACKNOWLEDGE it.
WHY IS THAT?
posted August 10, 2007 at 11:37 am
AFS,
That’s just the point – our “fate” isn’t sealed! We are not ‘puppets’ to God – we are precious beings created in His image. We have the choice to make, either choosing life or death, spiritually speaking. You can choose right now, today, what you want to believe. God is saying that the choices we make about what we believe and how we want to live our lives have eternal consequences.
Let’s say the doctor told you today that you have 3 years to live. What would you do? Would you say, ‘Well, I know my fate, so I am going to kill myself today because I know in the end what is going to happen so the pain, anguish, and evil don’t have to play themselves out to the end of the three years’? Probably not. You know the fate, but you would probably want to live out those years to their fullest, and you might make changes to how you live and how you relate to other people.
That is one of the mysteries of God’s all-knowing nature. Does He know ultimately who will choose to follow His Son to eternal life, and who will not? I have to say yes. But for some reason He chose to reveal His kingdom through human vessels. And knowing Him leads us to a richer, fuller life, both in this world and the next. Evil exists because we live in a fallen world, and we have an enemy that wants to keep us from having a relationship with the living God. So we have to toil in this world in preparation for the next. Is this God’s idea of ‘fun’? I doubt it very much, for He wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of the truth. But he wants us to come to Him on our own, for you can’t force someone to love and honor you. That relationship would not be authentic.
A lot of people ask the same question you did – why let it play out? Why not just end the game now and separate the sheep from the goats today? The reason is that Scripture tells us that the Lord tarries because He wants every living person on earth to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and have the opportunity to accept His free gift of salvation. Scripture also tells us that when the ‘time of the Gentiles’ is at an end, Christ will return for His church. The prophecies have been given to warn people of the time where there will be no more time to make your decision. So many people put off thinking about where they will spend eternity until they are old or on their deathbed, but we are also warned that ‘man knows not his time.’ That is why Paul says, “now is the time, today is the day of salvation.” Make your choice, and make it today.
Sometimes these things don’t seem fair to us. But in all of Scripture, I never remember God telling us He is “fair.” What He does say about Himself is that He is holy, righteous, loving, and just, and he judges with absolute justice. He is also compassionate and merciful, abounding in lovingkindness and patience and slow to anger. He is just, but He can’t be bribed, compromised with, tricked, or cajoled into doing something that is not in His character. He judges righteously, and ‘what a man sows, that shall he also reap.’
My prayer for you is that you will read some Scripture [start with Mark or John], think about it, and make that decision of where you want to spend eternity.
Thanks, and have a great weekend…
posted August 10, 2007 at 1:50 pm
GB,
I am not anti-Mormon, and there are actually a number of sites that are neutral or try to maintain a positivity about the church. However, when a person who was in good standing with the church (Oliver Cowdery, for example) gets ex-communicated, you summarily dismiss them as anti-Mormon and having an axe to grind. However, we don’t give that kind of treatment to people who, say, tried to scale the Berlin wall or sail from Cuba to the US to escape what they considered to be tyrannical systems of government. No, those people for the most part are hailed as heroes.
What bilge are accusing me of posting, by the way? Is there anything I said about Adam and Eve that isn’t true? Not withstanding the fact that Brigham Young believed Adam was none other than God the Father, and that professors at BYU today continue to teach that?
You can ‘refute’ the historical facts all you want, but the fact that you refute them does not make them any less true. The Book of Abraham, the ‘Reformed Egyptian’ of the plates, the archaelogical missing pieces, the Kirtland plate deception, you can deny them all you want. The fact of the matter is that there is recorded documentation and signature of witnesses to refute what YOU say, as well.
Here is the difference between Christianity and Mormonism in a nutshell; my faith depends on God, and what His Son did for me. Your faith depends on Joseph Smith, and whether he was telling the truth or not through a fantastically extrapolated series of unlikely events. I’ll take the former.
posted August 10, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Oliver Cowedry is an interesting example. He was extremely upset at Joseph Smith, was excommunicated, and could have destroyed the church, and yet, he could not deny that he saw the Golden Plates, witnessed the translation process and knew that the Book of Mormon was true. Not only that, he bore witness that angelic visitors attended to he and Smith and restored the keys of the priesthood. His testimony for an ex-Mormon spoke volumes to the trurhfulness of Smith’s work.
I will remind you that if it were not for Peter, Paul, John or any of the other prophets, you would have no record of Jesus Christ. A prophet is called to testify of the Lord. Without prophets, you have no testimony of Christ. That is all Smith did.
I challenge you to the same challenge you give to read the scriptures and come to Christ. Read the Book of Mormon and learn that He is the God of the whole Earth and has not forgotten the remnant of the House of Israel.
posted August 10, 2007 at 2:57 pm
B,
Thanks for you comments. You seem to be a very committed and genuine person. I enjoy the dialogue.
I have read from many Mormon sources. Joseph Smith may have testified of ‘a’ lord, but of mine. Not the God listed in the Bible. Note that in the Book of Commandments, published in 1833, Smith does not mention visits of angels or glorified beings in the transferral of the priesthood, but in 1835, when he and Sidney Rigdon are trying to convince the early believers that he had the priesthood, suddenly Peter, James, and John had come down to transfer the Melchizidek priesthood, and John the Baptist had appeared to transfer the Aaronic priesthood. In 1889 the First President had a revelation from God that he would protect the church and its practice of polygyny, but suddenly in 1890 he received another revelation saying to discontinue the practice. My God is not that fickle.
Peace to you, brother.
posted August 10, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Chief: What bilge are accusing me of posting, by the way?
GB: The latest one on this thread is this one;
Chief : The reason that it is singled out nowadays by Christian leaders and clergy is that the Mormon church, after generations of separating themselves from the word ‘Christian’, is now fighting full tilt to be known as a Christian church.
GB: As I demonstrated above, this is bilge. And this is only the latest.
posted August 10, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Chief: I am not anti-Mormon,
GB: Well lets see. You act like one. You quote from their material without checking it for accuracy. When shown where you are wrong you ignore it and act like you never have been wrong. You claim (continually) to be concerned about our souls and the truth but act differently. You will post anything (even if you don’t believe it yourself) if it can be construed to be negative towards the LDS church.
Yup, you are an anti-mormon.
posted August 10, 2007 at 5:24 pm
GB,
Nope, I am anti-falsehood. And there has been enough of that cast about here to last us a good long time.
If you point out to me where I have erred, I take a look at it. If I am in error, I will admit it. If I don’t feel like I’ve misconstrued the facts, I will let my post stand. Look on a couple of the other threads here, and you will see where I admitted I was wrong or made too quick of a judgment. I am human, and I make mistakes just like anybody else. I will never claim that I know more than anyone else, or that my way is always the right way. There is always room to learn. Like Oscar Robertson said, “the day I stop learning, I’ll quit.” And I have learned some new things through this dialogue.
But you have not overtly proven me wrong, and you have remained silent about some of the points I brought up. I did not ask those questions snidely or out of meanness. Your defense of the LDS is well-scripted, but it is a script, one that any one can follow just by going to the FAIR site. I have spent a lot of time on the FAIR website, and on the religious tolerance website. I have read quite a bit of Mormonism 201, FAIR’s rebuttal to Mormonism 101. A lot of data and facts, but no real inroads to dispelling the doubts that I and many others have about the LDS. In fact, I have more questions and more doubts now that I have researched deeply into the matter than when I first began.
Anyway, we have said probably all there is to say. You have your beliefs, and I have mine. If you are following the Christ, God bless you and godspeed on your spiritual journey. If not, I truly do pray that you will find Him. I am sure from reading these blogs that many marginal Mormons have. But if you hold to “orthodox Mormonism”, then we worship two different Saviors, and all of the worrying and hoping and do-gooding cannot change that fact. You see a Joseph Smith who was a prophet and the restorer of the faith; I see a con-man who, along with Sidney Rigdon, created a religion that would allow him to marry as many young girls as he wanted (at least 33, according to MORMON author Todd Compton) and ensure male domination over women. Reading the Book of Mormon does not change THAT fact.
I apologize if what I have said here or in the past offends you, I really do. The apostle Paul wrote a harsh letter to the Corinthians, and he did it over many tears. It was a hard letter for them to write, and it was doubly hard for them to read and accept. But they did accept his rebuke, they repented, and they shared fully in Paul’s joy when Titus reported back to him what had happened. That is the spirit in which I have tried to write my posts. I have not always succeeded, and that is my fault entirely. But that is why Christians today still minister to the Mormon community. Not to call them apostates or evil, but to call attention to the way the church has gone away from the gospel, and to call them to repent and to come back into true fellowship with Jesus Christ. And it doesn’t begin and end with Mormons; there are plenty of people who call themselves Christian but aren’t living like it. Just like the Corinthians, they need people to hold them accountable, to call them back into repentance, and to guide them in their sanctification. “Just as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” That is why I post on this thread; you may agree with me or not, and you may believe that I have your salvation in view or not. If you are confused about that, that is probably my own fault. But that is my intent just the same.
Peace be with you, brother.
posted August 10, 2007 at 5:56 pm
i am a born mormon and i think thats very wrong all we study is jesus christ and christianity is the study of christianity so how does that make us not of christianity
posted August 10, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Chief, you once again have your dates a bit mixed up. Are you sure you are getting your material from LDS sources, or from anti-Mormon sources. You see, often, anti-Mormon sources leave out large chunks of information, or twist the facts around for their own use.
For example, Smith’s “First Vision” story is not a single story, but there are several accounts, some more elaborate than others. The official version that was canonized does not mention angelic choirs, but I suppose they were there. In telling his story, he chose to emphasize certain things.
Also, you have the dates of the restoration of the priesthood mixed up, and as such, you imply things that could not have occurd. It is just like saying that Rigdon somehow influenced or wrote the Book of Mormon, when in fact he joined the church several years after the publication of the book. Seriously, people try to peddle that as plausible.
Another example is the story of the visit from Moroni. In Smith’s rendition, he is told by the angel several things that we was not allowed to reveal to anyone. We do not know what those things are, but we do not deny they were spoken.
I don’t know what you mean by “a” lord, other than the implication that LDS do not worship Jesus Christ as Lord. This is simply rediculous. If you cannot get past the concept that we accept Jesus as the only Savior of the world, then I really think we cannot move forward from this point. How can I discuss my beliefs with someone who will not accept the single most important belief defined and explained clearly in all LDS scrioture, discussion and literature (that Jesus is Lord), and then be told that I am lying or in error somehow. I leave it to you to decide how to proceed, but the discussion is moot until you can accept that Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ.
posted August 10, 2007 at 7:29 pm
B,
I don’t know if the dates are mixed up or not. I actually got them from a site that deals with Mormonism quite even-handedly, or more so. Even so, I do not claim to be a learned scholar on the topic, so if I made an error, I apologize.
B, I have tried to be very careful to separate an individual’s religious experience from historically held doctrines. I said if you follow the Jesus revealed in the Bible, you are on the right path and godspeed to you , brother. The Jesus revealed in the Bible IS different than the Jesus portrayed in the Mormon scriptures, and that is the line I am attempting, and obviously failing, to draw. From what I have read and heard, many Mormons either do not know some of the earlier teachings of the church, or choose to ignore them. I have no problem with that, and I have no qualms about calling them my brothers and sisters in Christ.
posted August 10, 2007 at 8:03 pm
The issue is this. You believe in the historic Jesus. This is not necesarily the Biblical Jesus. Mormons use the Bible constantly. The church education program is divided into four years, with a year devoted to one of the following: Old Testiment, New Testiment, Book of Mormon, and Church History. Many Mormons, myself included have read the Bible front to back several times. Mormons study their faith.
I have found that Mormons overall understand their beliefs much more than the average Christian. Mormons can explain the definition of the Godhead, often citing scripture to validate their position. I have found very cryptic and vague explainations of the trinity, and the phrase “it’s a mystery” is so common that it becomes parody.
Mormons do know and study early Church history and doctrine. Every Mormon knows of the King Folette speech, polygamy and Eternal Progression. They are as common as transubstatiation would be to a Catholic. Mormon Youth attend four years of seminary (one hour a day), and many go on missions at age 19. Believe me, we know our church. I am not a scholar, or particularly learned in church history, but I know my facts, and that is not uncommon. It is the way the church is designed, with a lay ministry, all members participate in teaching and leading. But Mormons know the whole story. I have the distinct feeling that you do not. Please, go to LDS.org and read some church talks. Go to deseretbook.com and order a few titles that seem interesting. I would recommend “Jesus the Christ” by James E. Talmage if you want the deep and complete LDS thought on the Savior. Of course, if you haven’t read the Book of Mormon, I encourage you to do so.
posted August 10, 2007 at 9:37 pm
B,
Thanks for your comments. One question I have in reading your post is this; what would you say is the difference in the historic Jesus versus the Biblical Jesus?
posted August 11, 2007 at 1:43 am
I believe the historical Jesus was developed by compromise when many of the various Christian groups were unitled under Constantine and the various creeds. Traditional Christians claim the Bible as the only source of authority while at the same time dismissing any sect (like Mormonism) who reject later doctrinal documents like the various creeds of Christianity. You have nearly 2000 years of following those creeds, and Mormons believe that just prior to their definition, the church lost authority and truth when the apostles were disbanded and replaces with the bishops. Eventually one bishop was named pope, and, well you know the rest.
Mormons believe the Bible had prior to the creeds many interpretations, and that the historic Jesus was simply the one that most of the Christians decided was right. It was basically a vote on the nature of God, the process for baptism, the role of the priesthood, etc.
The reformation allowed for more flexibility, like the manner and requirement of baptim, the lack of apostolic succession (i.e. no more priesthood), and several other doctrines that were considered not quite right. The trinity just happened to be one that wasn’t challenged.
Well, the LDS Church simply says that rather than voting or relying on man’s interpretation, God has revealed the truth through living prophets. Mormons don’t read the Bible and try to discover the nature of Christ. They look to modern prophets, (specifically Smith) and accept his authority as a prophet and believe in his mission. As such, they look at what Smith taught about the nature of Jesus Christ, both through his own writings (Doctrine and Covenants), and in the Book of Mormon and comare it to the Bible. When Smith claimed to see Jesus Christ literally at the right hand of God the Father, it forces one to rethink the trinity, and as such, to rethink how to interpret the Bible. When the Bible speaks of Jesus at the right hand of God, it become a literal vision. When Jesus prays to his father, it is a heart felt prayer, and not an example of how to pray.
I admit not to understand the trinity, and can see no evidence of it, other than to attempt to define oneself as montheistic in a very literal sense. To me, I read the Bible and see Jesus praying to his father, begging him to remove the cup from him, to grant blessings to his children, and praying that his apostles will be one, as he and the father are one. That to me is Biblical, but nothing like the Jesus in historical Christianity.
Today’s prophet Gordon B. Hinkley has been ridiculed by anti-Mormons for “admitting” to believing in another Jesus, often citing that the Bible warns of belief in another Jesus. Specifically he said:
“For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this, the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages”
In other words, we may well believe in a different Jesus, but my conviction is that the LDS Jesus is the Biblical Jesus revealed not only to man in these last days, but also to the New World, showing that he was the savior of all of Israel (and all the World) and that he did not forget the remnant of the House of Israel.
posted August 11, 2007 at 10:27 am
And so you place your faith in what the prophets say rather than what God says
read this from Jonathan Edwards:
‘TRUSTING is abundantly represented as a principal thing in that peculiar respect due to God alone, as a peculiar part of the essence of divine adoration, due to no other than God. And yet how is Christ represented as the peculiar object of the faith and trust of all God’s people, of all nations, as having all-sufficiency for them. Trusting in any others is greatly condemned, is a thing than which nothing more is represented as dangerous, provoking to God and bringing his curse on men. Men are abundantly called upon to trust in Christ, not only in the New Testament but the Old, as in the end of the second Psalm and elsewhere.’
posted August 11, 2007 at 2:37 pm
No, what the porphets say is what God says. What the creeds are is what man says interpreting what God says. I refuse to put my trust in the arm of men. You have chosen tracition over Biblical patterns.
“Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” – Amos 3:7
When has God done anything without prophets? Up until around 300 AD he didn’t. Bur you say he established the Catholic Church without prophets, he established the Creeds of Christiandom without prophets, he created popes, cardinals, ministers, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists all without prophets. How can those be of God if prophets were not around to establish God’s word on Earth?
posted August 11, 2007 at 9:56 pm
B,
With all due respect, you are really reaching here. How do you know the men in the 4 councils between 400AD-800AD, where the canon of scripture was finalized, were not prophets, or divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit themselves? Do you believe that God would just sit back and let His word be plundered and corrupted, leaving countless generations of people to drift about aimlessly? The God that I worship sure wouldn’t. How do I know? Jesus gives the answer in Matthew 28 “And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” He promised He WOULD NEVER LEAVE US. “I tell you the truth, where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of you.”
The creeds are not doctrine; they were simply efforts to codify the core beliefs of the Christian church. We do not worship the creeds; if anyone wants to know who God is, READ THE BIBLE. Want to know who Jesus is, READ THE BIBLE. God has revealed Himself, His Son, and His purposes for us IN THE BIBLE. Prophets did not serve to give new revelation about the nature of God; they pointed people BACK to what they already knew but had forgotten. God has revealed Himself FULLY, as much as He wanted to, in the pages of Holy Scripture. To believe that there are people alive today who are revealing new, unknown information about God and Jesus is just a very dangerous leap of faith to make.
As far as Mormon prophets, one only has to look at the Great Compromise of 1890 (where First President Woodruff repudiated polygamy just ONE YEAR after having a “revelation from Jesus Christ himself” that God would protect the church’s practice of it) and the reversal in 1978 of scripture in the BoM, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as countless sermons listed in the Journal of Discourses about racism and ordaining African-Americans. Each time, the Federal government was about to seize assets of the LDS, and each time the prophet had a timely “revelation from God” that reversed long-held Mormon doctrine and staved off federal seizure of assets or removal of the church’s tax-exempt status. As long as you and I live, you would never, ever make me believe that in either case the President, counselors, and/quorem had any message from God at all, but made politically expedient decisions based on financial concerns. That is why I reject the notion of ‘modern revelation’ prophets and apostles.
A case in point: The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Watchtower Society in Brooklyn is regularly visited by angels with new revelations from God. If you look into their history and beliefs, there is no way they could be categorized as “Christian”, yet they too have prophets with modern revelations. Are Mormon prophets any more qualified than theirs to tell us new things about God?
posted August 12, 2007 at 9:55 am
Hebrews!:1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
I’ll take God over your prophets any day of the week!
posted August 12, 2007 at 1:35 pm
In the last days? Jesus was around in the Maridian of times, not the last days. Second, the Bible says that two prophets will be killed in the last days. If there are no prophets why would John say there would be. (see Revelation 16, specifically verse 6)
Chief, the creeds are very much doctrine in a large majority of Christian faiths. If it were not so, Mormonism would not be dismisssed because we reject the doctrines of the creeds. It would also not be required to acknoledge them in many faiths in worship service and as a prerequisite for baptism. To say the creeds are not vital to mainstream Christianity is preposterous.
If you want to discuss polygamny and the issues surrounding it, or the blacks in mormonism, I would be happy to, but I would first like to reconsile the issue of the apostacy first. Jumping around only confuses the issues, and I am here to resolve them.
posted August 12, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It’s Revelation 11:3 and they are called witnesses not prophets
posted August 12, 2007 at 2:16 pm
A prophet is a witness to the divinity of Christ. Prophets have always been part of God’s plan (Amos 3:7)
posted August 12, 2007 at 9:37 pm
please tell me what Maridian means?
Hebrews1:1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in THESE LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
The writer of Hebrews seemed to think that it was the last days
posted August 12, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Read Revelation 11, and tell me how prophets don’t fit in to THE LAST DAYS, as you emphasize? The writer of Hebrews may well have thought the last days were coming shortly, but he would be wrong woudln’t he? But John is very specific as to the events of the last days, and writes of prophets being critical to the return of Christ. In fact, you often refer to an angel deceiving, but John talks of another angel:
Rev. 14: 6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people
posted August 13, 2007 at 12:21 pm
B,
In Revelation 11 and 14, the two witnesses and the angel are preaching to those who are left. I believe in pre-Tribulation rapture, so the church will have left the earth at that time. THERE WILL BE NO CHURCH ON THE EARTH IN THE LAST DAYS TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE! That is why the two witnesses are sent, and they are sent to turn the Jews back to God and to point out to them, who are waiting for a Messiah to deliver them from the antichrist, that their Messiah, Yeshua, had already come.
You are also not reading all of Revelation 14. There is not one angel, but THREE angels mentioned. One preaches the gospel, one laments how Babylon has fallen, and one warns what will happen to those who took the mark of the beast. Then, later on in the chapter, MORE angels come forth and harvest the earth. So John talks about LOTS of angels, not just one [which, I believe, the LDS teaches is Moroni again.]
B, I have never said that I discounted the role of prophets down through the ages. I also believe there are people with the GIFT OF PROPHECY who have lived on the earth for the past 2,000 years ago. After the resurrection, the Holy Spirit was given to believers, and He gifts each believer with a gift they can use to build up and edify the body of Christ. This, however, is different than saying that another Moses or another Elijah is come. They will not come again until the Great Tribulation. The main method of spreading the Gospel throughout the world is not prophets in this day and age, but by expositors of the Word (preachers) and teachers of the Word. Paul calls them “ministers of the Gospel.” They have been charged with studying Scripture and teaching the Gospel to the masses.
I would believe in a prophet if he spoke with words from God, and those words agreed with Scripture. But the people in modern times who have claimed to be prophets have, by my reasoning, strayed far from the Gospel message and taught things that are not Scriptural and do not build up or edify the body. The record of ‘prophets’ of the LDS does not come close to the records of the prophets we see in Scripture. Prophets never compromised the Word of God for political expediency, but LDS prophets have time and again. I cannot believe in men who would contradict earlier “revelations from God” just to save themselves trouble from the government. Early church saints went to their deaths rather than accomodate mandates from the Roman Empire that they found directly opposed the statutes of the Lord.
posted August 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm
B:
You said “Jesus was around in the Maridian of times”
what do you mean?
posted August 13, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Chief “THERE WILL BE NO CHURCH ON THE EARTH IN THE LAST DAYS TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE!” but didn’t you argue that the apostacy could not happen because Jesus said the Church would never leave the earth? I am so confused.
“So John talks about LOTS of angels, not just one [which, I believe, the LDS teaches is Moroni again.]”
No, Mormons do believe there will be (or have been) many angels in the last days. Moroni was one, Peter, James and John also came as angels, John the Baptist, Elijah, Moses… All had a purpose in the restoration of the gospel. More will come in the very last days before the second coming of the Lord. Moroni was not alone in LDS theology, and your comment tells me that you do not know the history of the restoration, but that is understandable. I am just trying to clarify the LDS position.
“I would believe in a prophet if he spoke with words from God, and those words agreed with Scripture. But the people in modern times who have claimed to be prophets have, by my reasoning, strayed far from the Gospel message and taught things that are not Scriptural and do not build up or edify the body.”
So the issue is that your interpretation of scripture does not match the words of Joseph Smith. Well, that is to be expected. No prophet is accepted in his own land, and as Jesus showed, traditions of men are not the same as the will of God. If you do not step out of your traditional comfort zone, you will be just as the pharases, blind to Gods message.
“The record of ‘prophets’ of the LDS does not come close to the records of the prophets we see in Scripture. Prophets never compromised the Word of God for political expediency, but LDS prophets have time and again. I cannot believe in men who would contradict earlier “revelations from God” just to save themselves trouble from the government. Early church saints went to their deaths rather than accomodate mandates from the Roman Empire that they found directly opposed the statutes of the Lord.”
Jesus also taught to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The church always tried to work with the government in a lawful manner.
If you think for one moment that the early Latter-day Saints didn’t sacrifice enough for God, then you don’t know Mormon history. It is completely offensive to say that they did not suffer and sacrifice for their faith.
I truly believe that polygamny was a test of faith. Will the saints be willing to live all of God’s laws? When it was determined they were willing to lose everything, including every asset of the church (temples, churches, welfare farms, everything) which the government had enacted and was forcing upon them, the Lord finally lifted the requirement, and allowed the church to continue. But it wasn’t because the saints weren’t willing to sacrifice. It was God accepting their sacrifice.
posted August 13, 2007 at 2:29 pm
John asked what is meant by the “meridian of time”. The meridan of time is the dispensation of Jesus Christ. The “fulness of times” is the final dispensation before the millenium.
Here are some references:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/d/45
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/d/135
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=meridian+of+time
posted August 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm
B,
Again, you are taking things out of context. Your idea of the last days and mine are different. The events in Revelation are FUTURE EVENTS; they have not happened yet. And the Scripture tells us that in the last 3 1/2 years of the tribulation the earth will undergo things that it never has in its history. Why? Because evil is rampant, and the binding effect that the Holy Spirit has on men’s hearts is gone, gone with the church that was raptured out of the world. There will be no church on earth, not because of apostasy, but because Christ has returned to gather His church up to Himself. Read Revelation 4.
Did you ever ask, “Why is there so much evil in the world today?” I have heard people use that to justify why they don’t believe in God at all. But just ask yourself this: “What would the world be like if God really didn’t exist?” I would postulate that we would see nothing BUT evil if God really didn’t exist. That is why we are called to pray for the world, pray for the leaders who are in authority over us, and pray for God to bind Satan’s efforts to attack them so that evil can be restrained. The fact that we see ANY love, joy, compassion, generosity, order, peace, rest, health, clarity of mind, or contentment is precisely because God does exist. The reason that there is evil in the world is because so many people are willing to reject the one true God and rebel against His ways. They follow instead their own fleshly desires, and thus fall right into Satan’s lap. God hates evil and He hates sin, but He doesn’t want to force His will upon us. He leaves our decision up to us. He wants us to make the right decisions, to use the authority (I John 4) He has given us to bring evil under control. He asks us not to support evil, not join forces with it, and not cheer it on by enabling, encouraging, or condoning it. He wants us to become aware of the tactics evil uses, resist evil when we see it, separate ourselves from it, and make laws to control or eliminate it whenever it manifests itself. Prayer, I believe, is the primary means God gives us to accomplish all that. In the last days, that means, the prayers of the saints, are taken from the world, so in the last 1260 days of the planet earth evil is unrestrained by prayer. That is the context of Revelation.
Whew!
I agree wholeheartedly in what Jesus said. Paul and Peter also implored Christians to live peaceful lives among the pagans, dealing with them with integrity and love, showing kindness always and not repaying evil for evil. That differs from the examples I gave, however, because in those cases the living prophet said he had revelations from God for one thing, then suddenly had another revelation just when the feds were about to step in. That, in my mind, is disingenous. God does test our faith, but I have never read in Scripture where He did things like that to an entire church or congregation.
posted August 13, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Also, B, when Christ was telling people to render to Caesar, He was telling them to obey the law of the land. Romans collected taxes, and since the Jews were subject to the Romans, they needed to pay taxes. Polygamy was outlawed in the United States in 1862, and for 30 years the LDS continued to teach it, in defiance of the law. They only recanted it, and I would say half-heartedly, under threat of massive arrests and seizure of church assets. This after Woodruff in 1889 had a “revelation from God” saying that the government would not prevail against the church. God, to my understanding, does not test us by telling us to break the law, then saying “Great, you were going to follow me, so that concludes this test.” Our faith definitely undergoes periodic and continuous testing, so it can be refined like gold in a fire, but not by God advocating illegality just to see how far we’ll go.
I have no doubt that the early Mormons underwent severe persecution, including city-and-state sanctioned violence. But look at what caused a lot of the uproar; it wasn’t a “restoration” of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had people hopping mad, but Joseph Smith’s doctrines of plural marriage and exaltation. William Law and several other people were ex-communicated in Nauvoo around 1844, because they felt Smith was a “fallen” prophet who was advocating non-Scriptural ideals, namely polygamy and exaltation. He alledgedly tried to take some of these men’s wives for himself, and they also felt he wielded too much power politically and was abusing it. Those things, not a heartfelt preaching of the true Gospel, was what normally started trouble for the Mormons.
posted August 13, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I believe John and many other prophets gave revelation about the last days in which we live. We call it the “dispensation of the fulness of times”. And to answer John’s Question, the “dispensation of the meridian of time” is the time of Jesus.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/d/45
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/d/135
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/l/26
I don’t believe there is any more evil in the world today than there was in the past. Certainly the Dark Ages were just as bloody as our World Wars. I do believe that they are magnified by our world view and our knowedge of world events. God does give signs of Christ’s coming, but that should not motivate us to be better. We have just as much obligation to repent now as we ever did. But we (Latter-day Saints) do have an obligation to prepare mankind for His coming.
Chief, you need to understand history a little. Whe the saints moved West to Utah, it wasn’t Utah yet. It was Mexico. It wasn’t part of the United States. The church recanted by pressure from the US when they came and extablished the area as a US territory, but it wasn’t originally. Rather than move again (and it was considered) they attempted to work through legal means to allow for plural marriage. Could God have done some “miracle” to force the US to comply to the church? Yes, but instead, the Lord told the prophet to submit to the law of the land.
“Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.” – Official Declaration 1
Chief said “it wasn’t a ‘restoration’ of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had people hopping mad, but Joseph Smith’s doctrines of plural marriage and exaltation.”
No, it wasnt plural marriage or exaultation. Persecution of the saints occured much sooner than either of those concepts were revealed to Smith. Actually, the biggest factor in persection was Mormons anti-Slavery stance and their power to vote in a block. And that they were bringing in thousands of converts and settling and building cities quickly. That was the real threat.
Joseph was betrayed primarily by John C. Bennett, who, ironically, was excommunicated for his practice of “spiritual wifery”, his own unrightious version of plural marriage. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, called of God just like Paul. I believe the Book of Mormon to be a scriptural witness of Jesus Christ, and hope you will read that book and pray to God for a witness, just as I have. I do enjoy this discussion, and am glad that you are responding and not just reacting. It is a refreshing attitude.
posted August 15, 2007 at 2:20 am
Chief1989,
Posted by: Chief1989 | August 13, 2007 3:02 PM
You wrote “God, to my understanding, does not test us by telling us to break the law,”
Was murder or the taking of an innocent life condoned in the OT or was it breaking some kind of law?
Abraham was tested by God to slay his son Isaac.
Genesis 22:9-12
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and alaid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the baltar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, aLay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou bfearest God, seeing thou hast not cwithheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Stan
posted August 15, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Stan,
At first glance, you present an interesting argument. Yet this was an example of representative sacrifice, an allegory of the real plan of salvation yet to come. The Father yielded the son, the son yielded himself, and so the story of Abraham and Isaac became a precursor of the Heavenly Father offering up His Son for the sacrifice, only this time Isaac was spared, and later on obviously Jesus was not.
God was testing Abraham, who was to be the father of many peoples and nations. In the end, God used this example to explain His own Son’s sacrifice for the sins of the world.
Quite different than the examples I gave of polygamy and ordination of dark-skinned men.
Nice try, though.
posted August 15, 2007 at 10:55 pm
If polygamny is so evil, why did the OT prophets get to have so many wives? I mean, the 12 tribes of Israel come from 3 or 4 moms. Clearly God was not against the practice. And Mormonism teaches that the “Dispensation of the fulness of times” is a true fulness of all that God gave his prophets, and as such plural marriage is just a restoration of one of many ancient practices.
posted August 16, 2007 at 5:10 pm
B,
You are partly correct. People love to point out that Solomon had 700 wives and 400 concubines. The question is, just because Solomon did it, does that mean the Lord condoned the practice? Solomon fell out of favor with God and died after being led into paganism by many of his wives, who were from foreign lands.
As a side note, most of the wives he had he appropriated when he took over territory or made a treaty or pact with another nation. One way they had of sealing a treaty between two kingdoms was for one king to give another king his daughter as a wife. This “sealed” the agreement between them.
God tolerated a lot of things from people in the Old Testament. In His forebearance He left the old sins unpunished until the new covenant was revealed through Jesus Christ. Now He commands people everywhere to repent (Acts 17). Jesus in Matthew 19; 4-6 stated what marriage was in God’s eyes:
4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
And Paul gave this admonition to Timothy in I Tim 3:
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but ONE WIFE, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 12A deacon must be the husband of but ONE WIFE and must manage his children and his household well.
Interestingly, there really isn’t an admonition for the laiety to be held to one wife – not a command that I could find. If one wanted to be an elder or a deacon in the church, though, you could only have one wife.
Why is this? I think Deut 17:17 has the answer: He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
When one has more than one wife, you are tempted to stray from the Lord, or be caught up in worldy affairs and neglect your spiritual life. I have more than I can handle trying to keep one woman happy; I can’t imagine what I would do if I had to spread that over a number of women.
Lastly, I think polygamy is dangerous in that it allows the man to keep seeking younger, fitter mates. A number of TV and radio programs over the past 10-15 years have gone out and spoken to people who were in polygamous relationships, and the biggest complaint among the wives, over and over, was that the husbands tended to spend more intimate time with the younger wives. The older a wife got, the less alone time she got with her hubby. According to historical sources, that’s what got Joseph Smith into trouble several times, both in Kirtland, OH and Nauvoo, IL, was that he was accused several times of propositioning 17-year old girls, when he already had a number of wives. To be fair, Joseph was only human, and he probably had something of a rock-star status among the Mormon population. He was probably propositioned himself by a number of ladies. Brigham Young made the assertion that he was so virile that a number of ladies would prefer him over the younger men for a husband.
Anyway, that’s my take on it. God wants people, especially people in leadership positions in the church, to have but one wife. That way he will not be more tempted to be led astray.
posted August 16, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I already posted this once but since the subject has come up again here it is again.
Deu. 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
. . . .
17 Neither shall HE multiply wives to HIMSELF, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (emphasis mine).
Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to equitably treat plural wives and children.
Deu. 21: 15 ¶ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?
So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
1. not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—2 Samuel 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.);
2. that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.);
3. not take excessive numbers of wives.
David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these biblical principles (See 2 Samuel 11:1-27 and 2 Samuel 12:7-10).
Nathan tells David that the Lord “gave thee…thy master’s wives.” And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.
But, David then sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?
Solomon’s problem is described in 1 Kings 1-2,7-8. Solomon’s wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.
There are other examples of legitimate Biblical plural marriages. Certainly—examples include:
• Abraham married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25:6).
• Jacob (Genesis 29:21-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9).
• Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13:8-12) and prospered in battle because of the Lord’s blessing (2 Chronicles 13:16-18).
• Jehoiada, priest under King Joash “took for him two wives” (2 Chronicles 24:3). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who “had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]” (2 Chronicles 24:16).
If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.
Now we move to the New Testament.
We have (1 Timothy 3:2,12)”A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
And (Titus 1:6-7) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Now this passage does not prove that a man should have “but” one wife. It only proves that a bishop should be a married man. Notice that there is no reference to elders in any of these versus. Also notice that there is no explicit requirement for the deacons to be married only the suggestive term “Let” is used.
posted August 17, 2007 at 12:31 am
GB,
Actually, in the Greek the term “bishop” is translated as “overseer” or “elder.” There were no bishops in the Catholic or Anglican sense in the early church. Most of the churches were house churches and met in people’s houses, not temples or cathedrals.
Also, in later translations, a more literal “husband of BUT one wife” appears.
posted August 17, 2007 at 4:19 am
Chief said:
To be fair, Joseph was only human, and he PROBABLY had something of a rock-star status among the Mormon population. He was PROBABLY propositioned himself by a number of ladies. Brigham Young made the assertion that he was so virile that a number of ladies would prefer him over the younger men for a husband.
Mike Bennion:
Now there is some really solid, well documented, and sober writing there Chief. I bold typed the “probably’s” for you sop we can all see how the rumor thing gets started. And nice quotation sourcing there on the Brigham Young quote.
Chief:
Anyway, that’s my take on it. God wants people, especially people in leadership positions in the church, to have but one wife. That way he will not be more tempted to be led astray.
Mike Bennion:
Sure…probably like Abraham, the “Father of the Faithful” and Jacob, the Father of the House of Israel.
Chief said:
Book of Mormon – polygamy is not allowed
Mike Bennion:
Book of Mormon: Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 FOR IF I WILL, SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, RAISE UP SEED UNTO ME, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE; OTHERWISE THEY SHALL HEARKEN UNTO THESE THINGS.
God makes it clear that the only time polygamy is to be practiced is if he specifically commands it. So there is no contradiction.
Chief said:
Other Mormon scriptures – it is impossible for a man to be exalted if he does not have more than one wife.
Mike Bennion:
You need to show the specific verse that says this.
Doctrine & Covenants 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
If God does expressly COMMAND anything, and man refused to obey, that man is in rebellion against God. The requirement ot live polygamy has been rescinded, so I am not under covenatn to obey it. Even as those who were required to obey the Law of Moses and could have been killed for breaking it, were not under the same obligation after Christ came.
For those in the Church, in the days of Joseph Smith, who were specifically commanded to enter into this covenant, it was absolutley necessary for them to be faithful in keeping that covenant.
There is no contradiction here. If there is revelation God can alter the commandments according to the needs and circumstances of his people. If this were not so, we would all still be required to build an ark in the back yard, and to offer burnt offerings.
posted August 17, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Chief: Also, in later translations, a more literal “husband of BUT one wife” appears.
GB: No doubt influenced by the translators bias against polygamy.
From Young’s Literal Translation
1 Tim 3:2it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
Hummmm “behoveth” is not the same as “must be”. Also no “but one wife” in there either. So an overseer could very well have more than one wife and not violate the intent of this scripture.
1 Tim 3:12Ministrants — let them be of one wife husbands; the children leading well, and their own houses,
Titus 1:6if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate –
7for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God’s steward, not self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre;
My comments still stand.
posted August 17, 2007 at 7:56 pm
GB
well it appears that you have found a translation of the Bible to fit your beliefs how nice, maybe you can get with Stan I hear he’s making the authoritative translation and having a vision from God to boot.
posted August 17, 2007 at 9:10 pm
GB
I don’t see why anyone in thier right mind would want more than spouse, ones enough!!!
posted August 17, 2007 at 10:21 pm
YoMama, you make a good point, and I am also glad I don’t have to do animal sacrifices, or stone my daughter to death if she decides to date outside of her race. The issue isn’t polygamny. It’s about double standards. Traditional Christians gloss over their own history, and ignore incosistancies of thier own faith. They take every statement of every Mormon leader and hang Mormonism on it. If you were to do that with Christianity, you would have to deal with Jim Jones, KKK leaders and worse. But because Christianity is so fractured, it’s easy to say, “well, he doesn’t speak for me”. Mormonism has fractures, but not nearly as many, so it’s an easy target for critics. But for 1500 years, Christianity wasn’t fractured. It applied practices of torture and murder, but again protestants say, “well, they don’t speak for me.” So, before you point out the mote in my eye, remove the beam from your own.
posted August 18, 2007 at 1:41 am
B
the difference is your leaders claim to be prophets speaking on behalf of the Almighty and their word is as good as God’s
I on the other hand have the word of God to check whether what someone says is of God or not, I do not have to rely on feeling which can be mistaken because feelings are subjective.
You say “But for 1500 years, Christianity wasn’t fractured. It applied practices of torture and murder, but again protestants say, “well, they don’t speak for me.”
I have one question what made it stop? Just because it happened doesn’t mean it was right. Just because someone says I’m a Christian doesn’t make them one. The Bible tells us what a follower of Jesus should act like. You don’t need a prophet to reveal what’s already in the Bible, that’s the job of the Holy Spirit.
If someone claims to be a Christian and then goes on a killing spree at a school. Is he a Christian? What would you use to determine the answer By the standards set forth in the Bible he is not.
posted August 18, 2007 at 2:23 am
YoMmama said:
the difference is your leaders claim to be prophets speaking on behalf of the Almighty and their word is as good as God’s
I on the other hand have the word of God to check whether what someone says is of God or not, I do not have to rely on feeling which can be mistaken because feelings are subjective.
Mike Bennion responds:
Our leaders ask everyone to find out for themselves by reading the scriptures and praying which is th eBible pattern for knowing.
I also have the Word of God, in the Bible and I find it remarkably consistent with the Word of God as revealed in the Book of Mormon and the other LDS Standard Works.
I don’t have to rely on your opinions as to what the Words of God in the Bible mean. Since I read it myself and I don’t see YoMama’s name in there anywhere as the sole adjudicator of what God’s word means, and since the bible tells me to ask God, I have done so, and he has answered me.
posted August 18, 2007 at 2:27 am
I would recommend that YoMama study up on the following three rules for dialogue:
These are three excellent rules for having a substantive and civilized dialogue about religion:
Truman Madsen, now retired as Richard L. Evans Professor of Christian Understanding at Brigham Young University, relates an instructive anecdote about a great New Testament scholar, Krister Stendahl. Stendahl, who taught at Harvard for many years and served as the dean of Harvard Divinity School, also spent a few years as the Lutheran bishop of Stockholm.
During Stendahl’s tenure there, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints built a temple nearby. As commonly happens when Mormons build a temple, there was complaining, puzzlement, and some opposition among the local people. Bishop Stendahl, who has Latter-day Saint friends and had visited Brigham Young University, reacted dramatically and quite unexpectedly.
He called a press conference, and held it in an LDS stake center. There, among other things, he outlined to the Swedish press three principles that he thought should govern our discussions of the religious beliefs of other people. Prof. Madsen, who was there, summarizes them as:
(1) If you want to know what others believe, ask them. Don’t ask their critics or their enemies.
(2) When looking at the religious faith of others, compare your best with their best, not their worst with your best.
(3) Always leave room for “holy envy.”
Some explanation and examples will make these three principles clearer.
The first should be fairly obvious. Enemies of a religious faith are unlikely to present it as its believers would. They are, in fact, quite likely to distort it and caricature it — unwittingly if they are honest, deliberately if (as all too often happens) they are unscrupulous and seek only a cheap and easy victory. This does not necessarily mean that there is no place for critics, or for listening to them. But if we really want to understand another religion, they should not be our first resource.
The second principle is “When looking at the religious faith of others, compare your best with their best, not their worst with your best.” We commonly hear people contrast the loving ethics taught by Jesus in the New Testament with the acts of self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. But it is not at all fair to compare our seldom-achieved moral ideal with horrid crimes that are, despite their prominence in the newspapers and on television, still relatively rare among the world’s hundreds of millions of Muslims. The butchery of the “Christian” crusades would be a more appropriate comparison to Islamic terrorism. And the death decree against Salman Rushdie should not be compared to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, but to the Inquisition and the burnings of heretics that punctuated the history of the West and lack real parallel in the Islamic East.
Stendahl reminded his Swedish audience of the human element that unavoidably affects even the most pure beliefs. If a religion is revealed, it is nonetheless revealed through fallible mortals. Alluding to the explanation on the title page of the Book of Mormon that “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men,” this eminent Lutheran theologian commented that such frankness increased his confidence in the book, rather than decreasing it [Italics added].
Finally, Stendahl counseled his audience to leave room for what he termed “holy envy.” We can learn greatly from faithful practitioners and believers of other faiths. The loving, joyous reverence of Orthodox Jews for the Sabbath — far from the cold, mechanical legalism of the stereotype — challenges us whose observance of the Lord’s day is often routine and perfunctory. Likewise, we can profit by reflecting upon the Jewish passion for religious learning, the simplicity and service of the Mennonites, the heroism of Protestant missionaries under terribly difficult conditions, and the social idealism of Dorothy Day and her Catholic Worker movement.
Regarding Mormons and their temples, Stendahl suggested baptism for the dead as an object of “holy envy.” We do nothing for our dead, he said. It is as if we have forgotten them. In contrast, he observed, the Latter-day Saints seek to bring the blessings of Christ’s atonement even to the dead.
At a minimum, observing Krister Stendahl’s three principles would eliminate much of the religious strife in a world that is growing ever smaller and more interdependent and that can no longer afford such conflict.
posted August 18, 2007 at 3:40 am
Mike B,
Loved your post. This is the first time that I have read about Stendahl. He sounds like a great Christian who lives his belief.
Stan
posted August 19, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Sorry to see YoMama leave, and just when it was starting to get interesting…
Thanks to Mike B. for your tenacity and supporting back-up.
I am now FURTHER convinced that “Orthodox Christianity”, as discussed in this forum, are devout believers raised up and taught to WORSHIP the BIBLE, (leather, paper and ink) to the detriment of realizing John 17: 3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” To suggest in any manner or form that the Bible has errs, contradictions, or incompleteness, is blasphemy and a direct attack on their god (idol); they just can’t go there or their whole house of cards tumbles. Mormonism is just that threat…and they are waging war against it!
I have family members who came into this COUNTERFEIT gospel of incompleteness, after having been raised Agnostic and after years of discussion, debate, and even bible bashing (sorry I was young and foolishly zealous then), we have amicably gone our separate ways, both in the hope that God will enlighten us [all] with the truth.
As I’ve said before, they ARE, mostly, fine examples of Christian ideals and God bless them for their sincere efforts; but they could have so much more if not for their rigid hold to many incomplete beliefs. I do look forward to ‘post-earth life’ Missionary service, when I get to see the “light” finally come on! Not for the “I told you so”, but for the change not unlike Saul to Paul had on the road to Damascus when they too will say when confronted by the Savior’s rebuke, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” (Acts 9:5) My prayer is that they too will stop “kicking against the pricks” and altogether be converted to the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ. All they have to do is knock…He will answer!
posted August 19, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Me too BringItOn
posted August 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Ah,
BringItOn, you just took this debate to a whole new level. I was vehemently attacked by Mike Bennion for daring to question the BoM, and now you go and say that people who believe in the Bible’s inerrancy are guilty of idolatry.
I just came from a PromiseKeepers conference this last weekend. There was a gentleman there named Bob Cornuke, who is a former CSI and SWAT team member who now is a biblical investigator. He and his team go on expeditions all over the world searching for lost locations and artifacts described in the Bible. They recently recovered the 4 anchors from Paul’s ship as described in Acts 27: 28-29 “28They took soundings and found that the water was a hundred and twenty feet[a] deep. A short time later they took soundings again and found it was ninety feet[b] deep. 29Fearing that we would be dashed against the rocks, they dropped four anchors from the stern and prayed for daylight.” They found these anchors due to the excellent detail Luke supplied for their location in a bay at the island of Malta. Cornuke also has led expeditions to search for Mount Sinai and Noah’s Ark, and he presented photographic evidence to indicate we may have located both. Material from an ancient boat found in the northern highlands of Iran (the mountains of Ararat, not in Turkey as many have supposed) is even now being examined, and the real location of Mount Sinai, in the NW tip of the Arabian peninsula, may have been found as well. Both are pending further study, but again they point to the veracity of the biblical records.
The Bible we have at present no doubt is slightly different than the original manuscripts, especially the OT. But we do have over 5,600 manuscripts for the NT books alone, and many ancient scrolls and basilisks have portions of about every OT book, as well, so there is excellent documentation for the content of these books. The message and the doctrine of the Bible remains clear and constant down through the ages. The Book of Mormon enjoys no such scholarship.
posted August 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Umm… Yeah, I found the Liahona too. Good thing God left all this irrifutable evidence for us to find. So I guess all those Muslims and Jews are going to be Christian now? Come on. At least present something somewhat belevable.
The scholarship on the writing style, the Hebrew influence and other factors that Joseph Smith could never have known or understood are well documented, but unlike you, I don’t anchor my faith on the knowledge of man, but rather, I get my faith directly from God. You have yet to ask God with any sincerity of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Instead you look to men to give you the answers that are easiest for you to swollow.
posted August 20, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Chief1989,
I thought you were gone from this discussion…nice to have you back.
I knew my comment, “…To suggest in any manner or form that the Bible has errs, contradictions, or incompleteness, is blasphemy and a direct attack on their god (idol)” would cause a stir, however, I firmly believe it true, until convinced otherwise…
Let me explain. The idolatry to which I refer is the same that the Israelites so often fell into, consisting of making images that stood for Jehovah, e.g., the calves of Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 12: 28). It has become quite clear to me that for professors of ‘modern Christian orthodoxy’ that it is much easier to rely entirely on “The Bible” rather than it is to approach the author (God). Any ‘substitution’ for the real thing…is idolatry, plain and simple.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee ANY graven image, or ANY likeness of ANY THING (including leather, paper & ink) that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not BOW down thyself to them, nor serve them…” (Exodus 20:4-5).
The Bible is a tool, nothing more…you have turned it into God, all knowing, unerring, all powerful, Alpha and Omega, while rejecting the True and “LIVING” GOD!
posted August 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Chief said:
BringItOn, you just took this debate to a whole new level. I was vehemently attacked by Mike Bennion for daring to question the BoM, and now you go and say that people who believe in the Bible’s inerrancy are guilty of idolatry.
Mike Bennion:
Wow. I’m “vehement”. Cool! I though of it as more of a robust defense of the doctrine of Revelation, as exemplified by the Book of Mormon.
Chief said:
I just came from a PromiseKeepers conference this last weekend. There was a gentleman there named Bob Cornuke, who is a former CSI and SWAT team member who now is a biblical investigator. He and his team go on expeditions all over the world searching for lost locations and artifacts described in the Bible. They recently recovered the 4 anchors from Paul’s ship as described in Acts 27: 28-29 “28They took soundings and found that the water was a hundred and twenty feet[a] deep. A short time later they took soundings again and found it was ninety feet[b] deep. 29Fearing that we would be dashed against the rocks, they dropped four anchors from the stern and prayed for daylight.” They found these anchors due to the excellent detail Luke supplied for their location in a bay at the island of Malta. Cornuke also has led expeditions to search for Mount Sinai and Noah’s Ark, and he presented photographic evidence to indicate we may have located both. Material from an ancient boat found in the northern highlands of Iran (the mountains of Ararat, not in Turkey as many have supposed) is even now being examined, and the real location of Mount Sinai, in the NW tip of the Arabian peninsula, may have been found as well. Both are pending further study, but again they point to the veracity of the biblical records.
Mike Bennion:
I think it’s wonderful they found those anchors. I have no doubt that Paul went on missionary journeys. This, however doesn’t “prove” that Paul was released from prison by an angel, or raised Uticus from the dead, or performed the many miracles that are attributed to him. Knowing where Jerusalem is doesn’t “prove” that Jesus was resurrected.
Seeing the Sea of Galilee, doesn’t “prove” that Jesus walked on the water there, or calmed the sea, or fed the five thosand with a few fishes and loaves. You still have to take a leap of faith, to know those things. You still have to have some kind of revelation that it is all true. To paraphrase Paul:
If in this (Bible) only we have hope (because of archaeology alone), we are of all men most miserable.
Chief:
The Bible we have at present no doubt is slightly different than the original manuscripts, especially the OT. But we do have over 5,600 manuscripts for the NT books alone, and many ancient scrolls and basilisks have portions of about every OT book, as well, so there is excellent documentation for the content of these books. The message and the doctrine of the Bible remains clear and constant down through the ages. The Book of Mormon enjoys no such scholarship.
Mike Bennion:
1. If the Bible is inerrant. How came we need 5.600 manuscripts for the New Testament alone? If the Bible is inerrant, why didn’t we just use the original English Language version and leave it at that?
2. Some of those “ancient scrolls” give a good witness of the genuineness of the things Joseph smith Translated. Especially the testaments of the Patriarchs and the Book of Enoch. They look like Joseph plagerized them, but they wern’t available for him to use. they didn’t come to light until after the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price were published. So you see, the Book of Mormon does, indeed enjoy such scholarship.
(See Hugh Nibley, SINCE CUMORAH, Deseret Book, 1967, Reprinted 1983, Salt Lake City, Utah. ABRAHAM IN EGYPT, Deseret Book, 1981, Salt Lake City , Utah.) http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai175.html
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_King_Follett_Discourse_in_the_Light_of_Ancient_Beliefs.html
posted August 21, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Mike,
Very interesting reading. However, you missed one important point regarding the Essenes: they were kind of a ancient forefather to modern-day Amish, in that they believed that removal from the world was the only way to establish personal purity. In their community there, they waited for God to send His Messiah, believing that God would send Him to them, for they were the most pure and had not corrupted or defiled themselves like other Jews. However, the irony is that they were still there in their enclave when the Messiah came, and through their pious actions they missed Him!
It’s the same thing that I believe about the LDS church today. Through your efforts to achieve piety and spiritual perfection, you are actually turning from God. Why? He has provided all that we need to be reconciled to Him, and by straining to do “all that you can do” to achieve righteousness, you are in fact telling God that the way He provided for our salvation is not really sufficient. How do you think God feels about that?
The centerpiece of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the book of Isaiah, which was copied into the BoM quite profusely. However, the KJV Bible, with the entire Book of Isaiah in it, was around every since the 1600′s, so the fact that the scrolls contain it does not prove a thing concerning the BoM. Every book in the Hebrew scriptures except Esther had a representative in the scrolls; I saw nothing about portions of Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Helamon, Mormon, or Moroni in there.
posted August 21, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Here is an interesting article from the Watchman Expositor:
————————–
Testing The Book of Mormon By Moroni 10:4
Timothy Oliver
Mormons love to say that they are not trying to convert others to their religion; that the Holy Ghost does that. One need not take their word for the truth of their religion; one can appeal directly to God Himself for His testimony.
They frequently refer people investigating their religion to a promise in the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things [the Book of Mormon], I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
Christians refuting Mormonism sometimes point out that the verse directs one to ask “if these things are not true;” whereas most Mormons have asked, and urge Christians to ask, “if these things are true.” However, these are both wordings of the same question, one put negatively, the other positively. There is really no difference, and no ground is won by such trivial objections.
Still, it is appropriate to examine this “promise” to see if it is a valid means for testing the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The Bible directs, “Prove [test, examine] all things; hold fast that which is good,” (1 Thess. 5:21). This does not mean that we should do as the Book of Mormon directs. Testing, or examining this promise is not the same as using it. Rather, one must examine it beforehand; one must actually use it only after it has been examined and found good. If the promise is to be examined and found good before it is actually used, there must be some standard external to itself by which it can be examined or evaluated. God has given just such a standard in the Scriptures.
However, the promise of Moroni 10:4 is given as a test by which one may know if the Book of Mormon is true. Since one cannot employ or apply the promise to find out about the Book of Mormon till one knows the promise itself is good, and a valid test, the Book of Mormon and the other “scriptures” brought forth by the Mormon church must be excluded from the standard by which one weighs this promise.
The Bible alone, then, is the standard to which this promise must be compared. It was for just such tasks as this that it was written, and faithfully preserved to our day.
First, is there anywhere in the Bible where God directs men to pray to find out if the scriptures are true or not? The answer is, “No.” Does the Bible record Jesus or any apostle or prophet directing any person to pray to find out if what he was saying or writing was true or not? The answer, again, is, “No.”
Mormons sometimes claim James 1:5 as an example of such a direction. Is it really? The question of whether something is true or not is a question of facts. Possession of, or acquaintance with, facts, is knowledge. (Thus one speaks of knowing something is true, not of having wisdom that something is true.) Wisdom is the ability to interpret rightly the facts one knows, and the disposition to employ or act upon one’s knowledge righteously. James 1:5 does not promise knowledge, but wisdom. Reading James 1 from the beginning one sees from the context that James was promising his readers that God would give them wisdom to understand why they were experiencing the trials and difficulties in which they found themselves. That they had such trials was a fact. It was “true” that they had difficulties. They “knew” that, and did not need God to tell them. But they needed wisdom to understand what they knew was true, and to respond to it righteously.
James 1:5, when seen in context, cannot be taken as authorization for questions like, “Which church is true?” or, “Is the Book of Mormon true?” Those are questions of fact, of knowledge, not wisdom. God has promised wisdom for the asking. But He has never said that He would give knowledge or facts, simply by prayer. Thus, Moroni 10:4 directs one to ascertain truth, to gain knowledge, by a method and a standard nowhere recommended in the Bible as the proper means to such an end. Already, then, the directive and promise of Moroni 10:4 is on shaky ground.
To the contrary, the Bible teaches both by precept and illustrative examples that the proper path to truth, the standard by which the truth of anything is to be known, is the scriptures (Luke 24:27; Acts 17:11; Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3). The person seeking wisdom as James directs does not ask for new revelations but for understanding of those already given.
Second, Moroni 10:4 is not so much of a promise as it is a manipulative device. It promises a particular result if certain terms are met. But the terms reflect on the seeker’s integrity as regards both his sincerity and resolve, and on his faith in Christ. To be willing to rely on the promise of this verse as a test for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness one must already have concluded somehow that its instruction is valid and its promise reliable. That is, one must already believe in the “truthfulness” of this verse. If the verse is true, then the only possible explanation for failing to obtain the result promised is a failure to meet the terms. That is, one must lack a sincere heart, and/or real intent, and/or faith in Christ. If one believes the verse is true then one must obtain the answer promised, or face an embarrassing judgement of one’s sincerity, intent, or faith in Christ. he seeker is forced into convincing himself he has had some kind of manifestation from God, just to vindicate his own character. Or worse, he is moved to a frame of mind where he will gladly and indiscriminately embrace any supernatural manifestation as though it were from God. Plain reason, not to mention all the force of Scripture’s revelation of the character of God, testifies that God would not, does not, use such manipulative mind/ego games against the human family to bring them to believe the truth. God does not approve, and truth does not need, such machinations.
Third, as noted earlier, using this verse as a test for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness would be pointless unless one had concluded already that its instruction is valid and its promise reliable. With no Biblical evidence for such a conclusion, its use is tacit admission that the Book of Mormon is true. Yet the terms on which the promise is offered forbid any such preconception.
To ask God sincerely whether the Book of Mormono is true or not, one cannot have made up one’s mind already that the book is either true or false. If one’s mind is already made up, either way, it would be hypocrisy to pray to God as if it were not, as if one still did not know. Either the Book of Mormon is true or it is false. One must be in a state of not knowing which it is, true or false, to meet the conditions of the test offered in Moroni 10:4. There being no Biblical warrant for proceeding as it directs, one cannot do so without invalidating the sincerity upon which the answer depends. Thus, it is impossible to use the instructions and promise of Moroni 10:4 as a test of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. One cannot both rely on it, and meet the conditions it requires, at the same time. Its promised results are predicated on sincerity; using it renders one insincere.
A Final Caution
There is not only no good reason to do as Moroni 10:4 directs, there is very good reason not to do so. Again, either the Book of Mormon is true or it is false. If it is true, certainly doing as it directs would produce the results it promises. If it is false, however, then Moroni 10:4, being part of the book, is likewise false and an invalid means of finding out whether or not the book is true. Relying on its promise and attempting to submit to its terms exerts tremendous pressure on the seeker to prove himself sincere by receiving the promised manifestation, even while it is forcing him to be insincere. He must rely on its promise while insincerely professing not to know yet whether it is reliable. The result is a self-perpetuating spiral of self-deceit. The need for relief from the resulting inner turmoil can easily drag one into still further self-deceit, finding a supernatural manifestation where there is none.
That is not to say no genuinely supernatural manifestations occur. Self-deception brings God’s wrath and judgement (Rom. 1:18-19). The person practicing it is abandoned not only to his own delusion but also to deception of another kind (2 Thess. 2:10-11). Asking for revelation from God, while refusing to take as his standard and live by what God had already revealed, is exactly what got King Ahab killed (1 Kings 22:1-40).
That people have actually received supernatural manifestations of one form or another upon following the directions of Moroni 10:4 should surprise no one (Eph. 6:12; 1 Tim. 4:1). To think otherwise is naive. If the Book of Mormon is false, one is just as likely to receive such a manifestation from a demonic source as one would be to receive it from a divine source if the Book of Mormon were true. It must be forcefully asserted then, such manifestations do not prove the Book of Mormon true any more than the miracles wrought by Jannes and Jambres before Moses and Pharaoh proved those magicians were from God.
To sum up, the Book of Mormon cannot be proven by any test of its own devising. It must be tested by the Bible. The teaching of Moroni 10:4 not only lacks any biblical foundation, it is contrary to the Bible’s teaching. Moreover, it is a manipulative device which forces insincerity and self-deception, thus opening the door to demonic influence. Far from proving the Book of Mormon true, Moroni 10:4, itself weighed in the balance and found wanting, is sufficient evidence to prove the Book of Mormon false.
————————–
Of course not everyone is going to agree with this, but you have to be very careful about going around saying “ask God whether this is true or not.” He already has given us the truth; in His Word the Bible, in His Word the Son, and through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which testifies to Jesus the Son and gives us discernment and understanding of the Scriptures.
In Christ,
Chief1989
posted August 21, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Chief, your thought process is so fascinating. If God gives answers through prayer, and people are onverted by reading the Book of Mormon, then something must be wrong with the prayer process. You are looking for any any every excuse not to read the Book of Mormon. I really don’t know what this fear is, other than you are afraid of the truth. Open your heart, and let God into it.
posted August 21, 2007 at 4:58 pm
CB: “Something must be wrong with the prayer process”
I agree wholeheartedly. We do need to have an active prayer life, as Paul admonishes us “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”
But in Moroni 10:4, you are advocating people beseech the Lord for the wrong reasons. Test the truth with Scripture, that is the Lord’s way. Do not test Him by asking if something is true or not when you have not done the scholarship for yourself. He reveals all truth through His word and His Son.
On the contrary, CB, I have no fear of the truth at all. I have it in my heart, and it was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, just as you claim. However, my faith is backed up by something much more concrete and real than yours is – God is the God of history, and He has revealed Himself through His creation, His works, and His testimony about Himself, the Bible. He also has revealed Himself through the life of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
As for people converted, this is the problem I have with the LDS claims of being the one true church.
The early Christian church, from 50AD to 321AD, was under intense persecution. A number of Roman emperors, from Nero to Diocletian, tried to stamp it out, and it faced fierce opposition from the Jews wherever it was established. Yet under this brutality, the Christian church EXPLODED in growth, from a few thousand converts at the Day of Pentecost to hundreds of millions. Indeed, during this time the church enjoyed its largest percentage of world population than it has had in any time since then, despite the fact that over 5 million Christians were martyred during this period. Christianity changed the face of western civilization forever.
Mormonism, on the other hand, has not exploded, swept over the U.S., or the globe. It currently counts about 12.5 million members, or 0.7% the number of Christians. It has not had the impact on culture, politics, or religious observances that the original Christian church did. As the purported restoration of the New Testament church, the LDS has not lived up to its predecessor in terms of growth or impact.
Some Numbers on Membership:
Christianity – 2.075 billion
Muslim – 1.3 billion
Hindu – 1.0 billion
Chinese Folk – 394 million
Buddhist – 376 million
Animism/Shamanism/Paganism – 300 million
African Tribal/Diasporic 1 100 million
Sikhism – 17 million
Spiritualist/Spiritism – 15.0 million
Jehovah’s Witnesses – 14.8 million
Judaism – 14 million
Mormonism – 12.5 million
Seventh-Day Adventists – 12 million
Ba’hai – 7 million
Jainism – 5 million
Scientology – 1 million
Christian Science – 500 thousand
Quaker – 100 thousand
Today, even after 177 years in existence, the Mormon church continues to exist at the outer fringes of religion in the world. If indeed it is the “true church’, then God must not be very active in it, for there are over 2 billion adherents to other forms of Christianity that Smith said were “abominations” and the “church of the devil.”
CB, if you would ask me for one precise thing that makes me doubt the truth of Smith and the BoM, it is just that. If Smith really was a prophet and God really wanted to restore His church on earth starting in 1830, then nothing alive could have stopped the LDS from flourishing right where it stood. Oh, the early saints were persecuted, you say? So was the early Christian church. Remember the stoning of Stephen? The conversion of Paul, when he was on his way to destroy the growing church in Damascus? The early Christian church faced far more horrors and a much more terrible adversary in the Roman Empire than the Mormons ever did. Yet not only did the church survive, it THRIVED, spreading throughout the whole countryside. If the LDS was the true church, it would not have been chased from one town to another. Instead, it would have established a network of house churches and house pastors like the early church of Acts, meeting underground and in groves of trees and in basements and the like, all the while preaching the gospel and winning converts hand over fist. But the LDS was wholly chased out of town after town and state after state, finally having to make the perilous trip from Illinois to Utah. If it was the true church under the protection of God, do you really think it could not have stayed and perservered in New York, Missouri, Ohio, or Illinois? Any resemblance between it and the early Christian church of Acts are superficial and meaningless. The early Christian church thrived, whereas the early LDS church merely survived, until it fould friendly confines in the Utah territory. The LDS church is growing in America, but did you know the fastest growing segment of religion in America is not the Mormons but independent Christian churches? Churches that stand on the authority of Scripture alone, and preach and teach the Word. That is where the real growth in Christianity is going on.
posted August 21, 2007 at 5:10 pm
CB,
I know that you disagreed with my post re Moroni 10:4. I of course expected that, because you assert you had divine assurances that it was true.
I ask you this question: Can you give me an example where the logic of the article is in error? Not a feeling or another witness to your testimony, but a concrete example of where the author of the piece committed a factual error.
I will be glad to discuss any such assertion.
In Christ,
Chief1989
posted August 21, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Strait is the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it.
Growth in many Christian churches is, in my opinion, because it’s “cheap” salvation. Come to church, feel good about yourself, and all will be well. Mormonism is not an easy religion to live. You actually have to live a Christlike life. Remember all those times you said “Mormons are good people, they make good neighbors”. Well, that’s because they follow their religion. I don’t think most Christians do the same. Mormonism is the 4th largest single denomination in the US. That’s a pretty huge accomplishment considering they are the odd man out, and many Christians wander from church to church with no regard to the doctrines that each individual congregation teaches. Televangelists (and evangelists in general) just want you to praise Jesus and make no real effort to better your life. When we are to meet Christ, we will recognize him because we will be like him. How do you expect to be like Jesus if you make no effort to live your life like he would. It is astounding.
James 1:5 answers your issue with Moroni 10:4. God does answer prayer, and I have just as many well thought out arguments as evidence of the Book of Mormon’s validity from 11 first hand witnesses to countless other witnesses of angelic manifestations to arhaeological evidence to linguistic implications.
The Book of Mormon is true.
I know because I have read it, prayed about it and received a witness from God. I cannot deny that testimony for it is real. Jesus is truly the Savior of the world!
You said you would read the book if you were given even one “shred of evidence.” Well, I hold you accountable for that promise.
posted August 21, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Chief: Christians refuting . . . There is really no difference, and no ground is won by such trivial objections.
GB: So why even mention it if not to prejudice the reader while trying to maintain the illusion of objectivity?
Chief: Since one cannot employ or apply the promise to find out about the Book of Mormon till one knows the promise itself is good, and a valid test, . . .
GB: That statement is untrue. For surely one can employ the promise with no prerequisites save only those enumerated in the promise of Moroni itself.
Chief: . . . the Book of Mormon and the other “scriptures” brought forth by the Mormon church must be excluded from the standard by which one weighs this promise.
GB: A rather useless and substantiated phrase.
Chief: The Bible alone, then, is the standard to which this promise must be compared.
GB: Another unsubstantiated morsel.
Chief: It was for just such tasks as this that it was written, and faithfully preserved to our day.
GB: Oh really? Can you provide chapter and verse to back up that statement?
Chief: First, is there anywhere in the Bible where God directs men to pray to find out if the scriptures are true or not?
GB: John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give IT you.
Matt 7:7 Ask, and IT shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
1 Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know THE THINGS that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but IN EVERY THING by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
Matt 21:22 And ALL THINGS, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
1 John 3: 22 And WHATSOEVER we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. (emphasis mine)
Looks like asking God for truth is taught in the Bible. And I didn’t even quote James.
posted August 21, 2007 at 11:22 pm
GB,
You are at your old tricks again. Why, oh why are attributing to me things that the author wrote? My preface said “this is an interesting article from the Watchman.” I did not write the article. I do happen to agree with it.
Look carefully at your Scripture cites and ask yourself if they compare to what Mormons ask people to do with respect to Moroni 10:4. No, because what the missionaries tell you is that if you get a testimony to the truth then the BoM is true, Joseph Smith is a prophet, and the whole LDS theology is validated. What you fail to do is note the number of people who have done just that and gotten a testimony, FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT, that it is false.
Teaching and testing all things, pouring all of our petitions before God, asking things in Jesus’ name, those are all sound biblical principals. I do not disagree with one of your biblical cites. And yet none of them speak to the matter of deciding if a complete canon of “scripture” is true. We are never told to do that, but to test and prove whether prophesies or revelations are true according to the Scriptures (the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, nothing else.)
One of the cites you left out was 1 Thess 5:21, where we are told to test EVERYTHING and hold on to what is good. You also left out Acts 17:11, where the Bereans were said to be of “noble character” because they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. And that is what is called for whenever someone utters a prophecy or has a revelation or asks us to accept other writings as canons of scripture. We are NOT to take those things by themselves, because it is easy to be deceived that way. You examine the Scriptures to see if they are true; then you can know whether to follow them and obey them or not.
Again, of course I do not expect you to agree with me or believe what I have written. That is entirely your right to do so. I would just say that the evidence has been put out there, and people need to make their own decisions. It is a more intelligent thing to make an informed decision based on the facts of the matter.
Anyway, there it is, and you can affirm or deny it. That is up to you. You do, however, have to live AND die with your decision, so it is not something to do lightly or irrationally.
Have a great evening…
Chief1989
posted August 22, 2007 at 1:08 am
Hve you tested the Book of Mormon yet? What do you find not “good” about it?
posted August 22, 2007 at 3:29 am
Chief said: Mike,
Very interesting reading.
Mike Bennion: Thank you.
Chief: However, you missed one important point regarding the Essenes: they were kind of a ancient forefather to modern-day Amish,
Mike Bennion:
I’m sure the Amish would be fascinated to know this. You want to substantiate this with a shred of evidence or support?
Chief:
in that they believed that removal from the world was the only way to establish personal purity. In their community there, they waited for God to send His Messiah, believing that God would send Him to them, for they were the most pure and had not corrupted or defiled themselves like other Jews. However, the irony is that they were still there in their enclave when the Messiah came, and through their pious actions they missed Him!
Mike Bennion:
While other Jews, like Peter, James, John and Paul by their righteous attempts to follow Jesus Christ, allowed them to recieve a witness of the Holy Ghost that he was the Messiah. “Thou art the Christ. The Son of the living God.” “Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven,” Their missionary work, which carried out the commandments of Jesus Christ, were marked by calls to other Jews to Have faith, showing that faith by righteous works, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands by those with authority for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I think the Essenes more resemble those who sit and wait for Jesus without doing the works he commanded.
Chief:
It’s the same thing that I believe about the LDS church today. Through your efforts to achieve piety and spiritual perfection, you are actually turning from God.
Mike Bennion:
Balderdash!
Chief:
Why? He has provided all that we need to be reconciled to Him
Mike Bennion:
Yes he has. And much of that is listed in his commandments, and in the Bible he specifically states that the folloowers of Christ will be known by their fruit.,
Chief:
and by straining to do “all that you can do” to achieve righteousness, you are in fact telling God that the way He provided for our salvation is not really sufficient. How do you think God feels about that?
Mike Bennion: By trying our best to keep the commandments that Jesus gave, we are, in fact, telling him, that his sacrifice means more to us than anything or anyone else in time or eternity, and that we accept his atonement by keeping his commandments. He has poured out his spirit upon us and thus we know that he is well pleased.
Chief:
The centerpiece of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the book of Isaiah, which was copied into the BoM quite profusely. However, the KJV Bible, with the entire Book of Isaiah in it, was around every since the 1600′s, so the fact that the scrolls contain it does not prove a thing concerning the BoM.
Mike Bennion:
If you had actually gone to the links I listed and studied them, instead of glossing over them as you do, you would know that Isaiah is only one of the Books that lend credence to the Book of Mormon.
Look agian at what I posted earlier:
Some of those “ancient scrolls” give a good witness of the genuineness of the things Joseph smith Translated. Especially the TESTAMENT OF THE PATRIARCHS and the BOOKS OF ENOCH. They look like Joseph plagerized them, but they wern’t available for him to use. they didn’t come to light until after the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price were published. So you see, the Book of Mormon does, indeed enjoy such scholarship.
(See Hugh Nibley, SINCE CUMORAH, Deseret Book, 1967, Reprinted 1983, Salt Lake City, Utah. ABRAHAM IN EGYPT, Deseret Book, 1981, Salt Lake City , Utah.) http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai175.html
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_King_Follett_Discourse_in_the_Light_of_Ancient_Beliefs.html
Chief: Every book in the Hebrew scriptures except Esther had a representative in the scrolls; I saw nothing about portions of Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Helamon, Mormon, or Moroni in there.
Mike Bennion:
Well DUH! The Book of Mormon was written in the New world. Why would they be included in the Old world scriptures?
However many concepts and even similar wording and phrasology from ancient texts, unavailable to Joseph Smith when the Book of Mormon came out, are contained in it’s pages.
Really, Chief, you’re reaching here. You can do better than that.
posted August 22, 2007 at 8:49 am
Chief said:
“BringItOn, you just took this debate to a whole new level. I was vehemently attacked by Mike Bennion for daring to question the BoM, and now you go and say that people who believe in the Bible’s inerrancy are guilty of idolatry.”
What I wrote to John on a different thread applies to you…If the definition of Insanity is saying the same things over and over again, and expecting different results…then you qualify!
READ MY LIPS…You Worship the BIBLE…not God! Accept that, embrace that, for that is YOU. You place the ‘written word’ in HIGHER authority than God Himself.
To you, admit it, God has disappeared to some corner of HIS universe and left YOU to finish the game…because YOU have His word. And YOU are such a smart guy, and so well intentioned, that you have figured out how. By mixing scripture with man-made wisdom & sophistries…and somehow that makes you feel ‘special’, ‘anointed’, a ‘true believer’ called to champion the TRUE word of God! So too were the Pharisees and Sadducees when Jesus arrived on the scene…
Unfortunately, your pride, not unlike theirs, will be your ultimate undoing. They too prided themselves on their strict observance of ‘the law’; you have simply replaced ‘the law’ with ‘the bible’; and like them, I’m afraid it will take God, and God alone to correct you…and when that time comes there won’t be any ‘Roman authority’ to hide behind…
Sorry to be so blunt.
posted August 22, 2007 at 2:56 pm
BringItOn,
You are amusing, I will give you that. I do not worship the Bible any more than I worship a cross or a fish or a crown of thorns. I worship the God REVEALED in the Bible. I worship the God who REVEALED HIS NATURE AND CHARACTER through the life, death, and resurrection of His only begotten son, Jesus Christ. I worship the God WHO LIVES in my heart. I worship the God WHO REVEALS HIMSELF through creation. I worship the God who REVEALS HIS WILL TO ME by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I worship the God who uses OTHER CHRISTIANS to speak to me, encourage me, and edify me. That is my God, not the Bible.
You, on the other hand, worship men and their teachings. Joseph Smith, Gordon Hinckley, and whoever else sits on the throne in Utah. You have been led astray by the false teachings of men, and only God CAN LEAD YOU back.
Mike,
I read all of your comments, and read the link. I am sorry, but the Book of Mormon does not enjoy one millionth of the scholarship of teh Bible. Nothing in there has the slightest connection to Joseph Smith. The only thing in common: the jars of clay were buried for safekeeping, and the golden plates were supposedly buried for the same reason. The big difference? You can go see the Dead Sea Scrolls, but you can’t see the plates, can you? And another difference? The people burying the scrolls did not do so so that the scriptures could be “restored” at a later date. They were trying to preserve part of their history, just like we might want to preserve priceless works of print and art. How do I know this? Because the scriptures contained in the scrolls were not the ONLY COPIES!! There were countless other copies of the Scriptures available to be read.
Mike, do you know what an antichrist is? Do you know what the spirit of the antichrist is? You might want to brush up on it. You say these other ancient texts weren’t available to Joseph. How do you know what he saw when he looked into his big spectacles? No one else was allowed to see the plates or what was written on them. Dr. Anthon later said that what he had been brought by Harris was a mishmash of things that were not interrelated. If you me to “cite and substantiate” that, I would be happy to. Anyone who has a computer can go read the entire text of Anthon’s reply to the visit of Martin Harris. It does not corraborate Smith’s story. However, Paul said the spirit of the antichrist was alive in the world, back then, and would be here until the end of all things. Do you not think that Satan, being a highly intelligent celestial being, could not play with young Joseph Smith’s mind? Are you more clever than Satan? Was Joseph? Probably not, because you delight in saying he was considered a ‘dullard’ with a 3rd-grade education. A perfect fall-guy for the promulgation of a false gospel.
Other people have accused my of being like a Pharisee in my refusal to accept new prophecies and new revelations. If rejecting the peculiar beliefs of the LDS makes me a Pharisee, so be it. However, the Pharisees were also chided by Christ for living by the letter of the law and not by its heart, and for adding to it to increase the burden on the people. That is what I read when I read your posts. You want to live by the letter, and you, by adding other so-called scriptures to the canon of the Bible, have added to the law and increased the burden on the people. Again, a perfect example of what Paul was speaking about in Galatians. And of what Jesus Himself spoke about in Matthew 23:
13″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
I am sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. You can post all of the cites and substantiations that you want, but nothing will change the fact that the LDS has added to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not in a good way. There is one gospel, and Paul says it is this in I Cor 15:
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Did you notice that Paul said “last of all he appeared to me also”? Paul is the last true apostle with the commission and authority of Christ. Joseph Smith didn’t have it, neither did Brigham Young or Orson Watt or any of the other LDS ‘apostles and prophets.’ Paul was the last to have the apostolic succession of authority. John outlived Paul, but Jesus appeared to John first.
Anyway, that’s my take, and I’m out….
posted August 22, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Chief: Look carefully at your Scripture cites and ask yourself if they compare to what Mormons ask people to do with respect to Moroni 10:4. No, because what the missionaries tell you is that if you get a testimony to the truth then the BoM is true, Joseph Smith is a prophet, and the whole LDS theology is validated.
GB: John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
So you’re saying that “ALL THINGS” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
So you’re saying that “ALL TRUTH” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, WHATSOEVER ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give IT you.
So you’re saying that “WHATSOEVER” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
Matt 7:7 Ask, and IT shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
So you’re saying that “IT” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
1 Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know THE THINGS that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So you’re saying that “KNOWETH THE THINGS” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in EVERY THING by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
So you’re saying that “EVERY THING” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
Matt 21:22 And ALL THINGS, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
So you’re saying that “ALL THINGS” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
Except for prayers about knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
1 John 3: 22 And WHATSOEVER we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
So you’re saying that “WHATSOEVER” doesn’t include knowing if The Book of Mormon is true, or if Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if the LDS is the true church. Because you say so right!
Chief: What you fail to do is note the number of people who have done just that and gotten a testimony, FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT, that it is false.
GB: What is that number? I personally don’t know of any person that has gotten that answer. I did know of one person who never got an answer from his prayer. I found out later that he was very much into pornography and illicit sexual encounters. And he had no interest in giving up his life style. It is obvious that he didn’t meet the “ask with a sincere heart, with real intent” prerequisite. Do you have a sincere heart?
Chief: Teaching and testing all things, pouring all of our petitions before God, asking things in Jesus’ name, those are all sound biblical principals.
GB: Like the “I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ,” part of the promise. Right? Have you even read the promise?
Chief: I do not disagree with one of your biblical cites. And yet none of them speak to the matter of deciding if a complete canon of “scripture” is true.
GB: See above
Chief: We are never told to do that, but to test and prove whether prophesies or revelations are true according to the Scriptures (the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, nothing else.)
GB: My previous post shows otherwise. You haven’t shown my position to be in error. Can you provide a scripture to back up your “the Bible, nothing else” part of that statement? Very difficult since the Bible didn’t exist for nearly 300 years after its books were written.
Chief: One of the cites you left out was 1 Thess 5:21, where we are told to test EVERYTHING and hold on to what is good. You also left out Acts 17:11, where the Bereans were said to be of “noble character” because they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
GB: I wasn’t trying to be exhaustive, only representative. They obviously weren’t studying the Bible because it didn’t exist; in fact most of the New Testament hadn’t even been written at that time.
2 Nephi 32: 8 . . . For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.
posted August 22, 2007 at 10:13 pm
GB,
Ah, you cut me to the core again with your wicked reparte and rapier wit. I must say you follow the formulaic Mormon response to the tee. You have been taught well. Taught wrong, but well.
posted August 23, 2007 at 12:14 am
Chief,
You continue to be one “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Tim 3:7 (quote from your inerrant bible).
Forced by your own ideology, you NEED to oppose The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; it’s become your narcotic…without it your suffering would be unbearable.
You need help friend…just remember, the first step is recognition!
I stand ready to assist.
posted August 23, 2007 at 9:46 am
BringItOn,
I am not “forced” to oppose anything. I would say that I am “compelled” to speak the truth. If what the LDS teaches is not truth, I am “commanded” to expose it and lead people back to the true gospel. Not a narcotic high, but a Christian duty, my friend.
As for GB’s post, I could have listed a number of Bible quotations to refute his points, and I could have listed commentary from 20 different sources to explain why he is taking verses out of context. However, it has become apparent that some people on this thread have no interest in a genuine exchange of ideas, and instead are using it to promote their own agenda to obfuscate the truth. I see no point in wasting my time when all they will do is take snippets and twist and distort them to their own way of thinking.
Therefore, I will follow Jesus’ command in Matthew 7:6 – Do not give dogs what is sacred, and do not throw your pearls to the pigs.
Their attempts to sully the gospel of Christ will from now on be met with my silence.
posted August 23, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Chief: Ah, you cut me to the core again with your wicked reparte and rapier wit. I must say you follow the formulaic Mormon response to the tee. You have been taught well. Taught wrong, but well.
GB: If you can’t refute the message then disparage the messenger. (Just like you do with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.)
Chief: As for GB’s post, I could have listed a number of Bible quotations to refute his points,
GB: I would like to see them, IF they exist. Clear and plain ones would be preferred not ones you have to twist and wrest to get it to support you.
Chief: and I could have listed commentary from 20 different sources to explain why he is taking verses out of context.
GB: If you can’t do it with the Bible (which you claim is inerrant and sufficient), then why waste our time with OPINION?
Chief: However, it has become apparent that some people on this thread have no interest in a genuine exchange of ideas, and instead are using it to promote their own agenda to obfuscate the truth.
GB: How many commenting here would say that about you?
Chief: I see no point in wasting my time when all they will do is take snippets and twist and distort them to their own way of thinking.
GB: You seem to have a lot of time to search for anti-mormon drivel to copy and paste here. Why not spend some of that time actually thinking about what you are posting.
BTW I do believe it is apparent that I quote more scripture in support of my position than you do in support of yours.
I am flattered that you would think that I was Greg but I am not. He like me recognizes your lack of supporting documentation.
posted August 23, 2007 at 4:15 pm
The article is spot on.
If Mormons were Christians they would not send missionaries to my house.
Mormons believe many gods exist and that God was once a man.
Christians believe what God Himself said: “There are no Gods besides Me”. None before, none after.
Mormons believe the gospel is the laws and the ordinances of the Mormon church.
Christians believe the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
1Corinthians15: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”
LDS have it backwards, they think they can test the Bible because a single man came along and said so. The opposite is true. We use the Bible to test all who come and proclaim a message as being from God.
LDS forget that the apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus warned about false teachers and prophets and Christs. In the last 200 years we’ve seen hundreds of them, from Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon and on and on.
The reason they fail is that Jesus is Lord of all, faith should be in Jesus, not any man. This means the believer has no man in authority over him, telling him what to believe. His relationship is with God, through Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. It’s something that the LDS church, the JWs and the rest can’t fake, though they try.
LDS leaders claim that they were appointed by God as His official representatives on earth and that they are they only organization approved by God and by which man can receive the truth. But as was pointed out here already, Jesus already gave each believer the ability to personally discern truth: “He will guide you into ALL TRUTH…” (John 16:13)
Jesus did NOT come to set up a big monolithic church.
LDS: Your leaders have replaced the Holy Spirit with manuals and testimony meetings.
How do you determine truth? By praying? By consulting your bishop?
Fail to listen to him and you are subject to a disciplinary hearing.
Blow that by saying the wrong thing and you lose your wife, your kids, your friends and even your eternal life.
Is this what Jesus Christ had in mind when he was crucified for your sins?
Jesus is the only name given among men by which we must be saved.
The ONLY name.
Nigel
signsoflife7@yahoo.com
posted August 23, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Nigel;
What have you been smoking?
You said; “LDS: Your leaders have replaced the Holy Spirit with manuals and testimony meetings.”
The Bible tells us to testify to one another to lift each other up.
John 3:10 – 11 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
John 7:6 – 7 6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
Are you saying that testifying of Jesus as the Christ is wrong? We try to teach our members to testify of Christ. If they have had a witness from the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet, or that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is Christ’s true church, then they may at their discretion so state. Members may also relate other spiritual experiences as they desire.
Nigel: How do you determine truth? By praying? By consulting your bishop?
I am LDS and I depend upon conformation from the Holy Ghost as to what is true.
Nigel: Fail to listen to him and you are subject to a disciplinary hearing.
What a bunch of crap! I have challenged both bishops and stake presidents. I have never even been cautioned or even asked to back off. You probably got your information from someone who was disciplined for moral reasons. Heck we don’t even have disciplinary hearings for members who violate the “word of wisdom” or who are in-active. You may get a disciplinary hearing if you are morally un-clean or if you are going out of your way to hurt the church. Oh yeah, and if you are convicted of a felony.
I have served in multiple Bishoprics and the High Council so I know what I am talking about.
Nigel: Blow that by saying the wrong thing and you lose your wife, your kids, your friends and even your eternal life.
Again, a bunch of crap from someone who is getting fed bad information, from someone else who has an ax to grind. TRUTH! If you commit adultery, or you are a criminal, and you don’t repent, then you should loose everything that you listed.
If you loose your wife because you lost your testimony, then you probably had a bad marriage to begin with.
Nigel: Is this what Jesus Christ had in mind when he was crucified for your sins?
NO, your misunderstanding of the LDS church and how it functions is one thing, but to be a false witness is a violation of one of the ten commandments.
Nigel: Jesus is the only name given among men by which we must be saved.
Exactly, that is exactly what the LDS church teaches. Nigel, at least you got one thing right.
Stan
posted August 23, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Chief,
Admittedly, I have been too flippant with your responses to “some” of the postings here. For that I apologize. It is not my intent to chase you off into silence. After a while, I guess I became a little more than annoyed by your silence of others postings that were clearly “anti-Mormon”, and felt your quiet assent despite any inflammatory, unsubstantiated or downright bigoted response anyone felt to post.
I think open, truthful and honest discussion is not only helpful towards building bridges, but essential to furthering God’s work among His children.
Let’s all stop the “cheap” shots & avoid “telling” each other what another person believes AND share openly not only our own core beliefs, but our ideal Christian goals for turning the tide of evil that is rapidly blanketing the entire world.
So, what do you say? Back on task? I believe the original question was “Are Mormon’s Christian”?
Perhaps a more productive approach would be to cite a scripture and then comment on our own belief of what the original authors were trying to convey rather than you or me telling each other what we are ‘supposed’ to believe. We could even start by definitions, and see where that leads…sort of like the techniques C.S. Lewis employs in ‘Mere Christianity’. I do think we should also have the latitude to “challenge” any comment made, so long as it is kept respectful, documented and stated as personal opinion, speculation or whatever, when it is such. Any problems with those ground rules? I do enjoy SOME of your postings…
posted August 23, 2007 at 10:58 pm
BIO,
I can agree with those ground rules. GB and Greg oppose “opinion”, but isn’t that what we’re left with in the end? We each follow our own set of beliefs based on our own interpretation of what we see and hear. I like to read different Bible commentaries because they were written by men and women who have studied, and in certain cases devoted their entire lives, to illuminate Scripture. Sort of like modern-day prophets, if you will. They bring to me new understandings sometimes, and different perspectives on passages that I had not thought of before.
What I am going to cease doing is just citing verse after verse. Biblical interpretation depends on context. It has been said that you can find a Bible verse to support just about any possible position you could ever think of, and that is true. The KKK cites Bible verses to support their hate all non-white philosphies. Bible verses were used over and over in the south during slavery to “prove” to the slaves that their servitude was biblical. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion activists cite the Bible, as do the NRA and anti-gun lobbyists, pro and anti-death penalty advocates, and the list goes on and on. In the end, what you end up with is 6 months of posts, all citing verses out of context to prove a point or doctrine, and we are nowhere near resolving any of the issues.
As for myself, I have called other Christian posters to task for either the content or bent of their posts. Do I assail every one for every single item that I don’t particularly agree with? No, because if we all did that that’s all this thread would be, people picking apart every preceding post to disagree with one or two things in a half-page posting. We would never get anywhere doing that. That being said, as an evangelical Christian I do hold beliefs that differ from LDS positions, and there are times when we will clash over those differences. I strive to do this in a genteel way, but I don’t always. Have I posted things about Mormonism that may not have been entirely accurate? I’m sure I have, and for that I apologize for not doing more research before sending it out. I will strive to do better, so that I will not be posting something about the LDS that is not a matter of fact.
Let’s see where this goes from here.
In Christ,
Chief1989
posted August 24, 2007 at 3:17 am
Chief, et al,
I refuse to engage in respectable conversation with any who are anti-Mormon or anti-any religion for that matter.
Of course it would be more than silly to categorize all non-LDS as anti-Mormons. In fact, it might even be a bit arrogant on my part, to think that very many people in this world pay any attention at all to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
However, there is a certain breed calling themselves “street preachers,” as they identify themselves, who have made it their life’s mission [on errand from God] to disturb, agitate and disrupt Latter-day Saints in whatever forum they may. With bullhorn in hand (or keyboard), they refuse ‘common decency’ and beat out their obnoxious diatribe of insults, misrepresentations & downright falsehoods just hoping for a negative reaction so they can then use it to justify their illegitimate acts. These clearly are anti-Mormon. So in fairness to open debate on “Are Mormons Christians?”, there has to be some ground rules.
1. Any time a posting statement is inaccurate or misleading, I will start counting. One or two of these on nonessential matters can perhaps be overlooked. But if they accumulate, the chances are you’re more anti-Mormon than you are inaccurate and I will expose you.
2. Let each person say for himself what he believes. You may speak for yourself, and I will do the same. Quoting from past sermons or writings outside each person’s own “Canonized Scripture” is to be interpreted as apocryphal. Too often I hear that we don’t believe in salvation by grace? Or that we don’t believe in the Jesus of the Bible? Such people are not interested in a conversation or in accuracy. They are simply anti-Mormon.
3. “Cherry-picking” unusual or exceptional incidents to generalize a statement of fact about Mormonism is to thinly veil an anti-Mormon position and I will expose it as such. “One who wanders down the street of Mormon history picking up an empty beer can here, a piece of decaying garbage there, whose whole interest is in such things, who shows no interest in goodness or dedication or courage or achievement—–this is your typical anti-Mormon writer. Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestant evangelicals, Hindus—–many groups have reason to be concerned about how they are portrayed. Latter-day Saints are no different and can fairly raise the same questions.” (Spotting an anti-Mormon, Davis Bitten pg.355).
4. Your point of view, negative though it be, is not a concern to me. That is until it only casts Mormons as “enfant terrible” or portrays the church and its leaders always in the worst possible way with no redeeming qualities…it will be exposed as anti-Mormon.
5. Although an outside perspective can be enlightening, anti-Mormon works are always identified by how they demonize their subjects. Through distortion and deceit, they leave a flawed, tainted picture of factual events or actions. References of people, places or things, outside the “known” world of Mormonism, are unreliable for defining Mormon Doctrine, policy or actual events occurring within its own context. These too, will be exposed as anti-Mormon.
Within this context we can have a fair and balanced look at the topic of “Are Mormons Christian?” and/or “Are Christians Mormon”?
I’m eager to begin…
posted August 24, 2007 at 11:36 am
Chief: I can agree with those ground rules. GB and Greg oppose “opinion”. . .
GB: I can’t speak for Greg but I am not opposed to opinion as long as it is stated as such. What I dislike is fiction or falsehood being presented as fact.
I would like nothing more than to have a reasonable conversation as I stated in the “Let’s Call Mormons ‘Nontraditional Christians’” thread, Posted by: GB | July 30, 2007 10:32 PM and Posted by: GB | July 30, 2007 4:44 PM.
That was just before you went on your anti-mormon copy and paste tirade. But that is water under the bridge and today is a new day so I will gladly let bygones be bygones and start fresh.
posted August 24, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Perhaps it would be timely for us to define the term “anti-Mormon.” I agree that non-factual distortions solely intended to cast the LDS in the worst possible light all of the time should not be tolerated at all in this discussion. Likewise, I think things like the Spaulding book and the printing press issues have been played out, and should be discarded as fodder for our dialogue.
However, to use the printing press as an example, sometimes there are several different historical perspectives that contradict one another. I believe either BringItOn indicated that the destruction of the press never happened, yet the lds-byu website said matter of factly that the press was destroyed. Venturing that opinion, when citing an overwhelmingly pro-LDS source, should not and indeed can not classify me as an “anti-Mormon.” There has to be some leeway here, because though there may be more than one version of an event, the version proffered by the LDS should not be always taken as the gospel truth. If one takes a position opposite the LDS view, if that position can be logically and/or historically defended, should not render that person automatically an anti-Mormon, any more than my disagreements with some of President Bush’s policies would make me “anti-Bush” or “anti-American.”
If we can operate under those guidelines, I’m all for it.
P.S. GB, although I will now be very hesitant to engage you in conversation again, some of those “opinions” you dogged me for (just because Chief says so? I think not) are well-documented ecumenical positions held by the church from the earliest church fathers. If in fact I post any more of those, I will strive to document those as such so there is no confusion on what is simply my opinion and what are widely-held positions of the Christian church. Okay?
posted August 24, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Chief,
Since you asked to ‘define’ an anti-Mormon, here you go…
“Even before the [LDS] church was organized there were those who felt they needed to attack Joseph Smith and the work he was doing. Many of these critics have not felt constrained to be accurate with the information available. These critics have ranged from the despicable to the seemingly accurate. As Robert and Rosemary Brown were drawn to investigate some of their lives and propensity for truth, they had enough information of deceit to more than fill four volumes of “They Lie in Wait To Deceive”.
The Prophet Joseph Smith made the following statement to a man who wondered why those who had left the Church fought so fiercely against it: “Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigations of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.” (in “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ” Juvenile Instructor, 15 Aug. 1892, 492)
Some of the methods and deceit appalled even the Tanners who have been lifetime anti-Mormon authors and critics:
“we were thoroughly disgusted when we later found that a number of Mormon critics had also resorted to the idea that `the end justifies the means.’ Because they firmly believed that Mormonism was built on sand and therefore dangerous to the people who accepted it, they seemed to feel that they had the right to twist the facts to make their arguments stronger. In some cases documents were actually altered to suit their purposes, and in at least a few cases the forgery of entire documents was perpetrated.” [Tanner, Jerald & Sandra (1990) Covering up the Black hole in the Book of Mormon Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry p. 1]” See http://www.lightplanet.com/response/critics.htm.
Here are several individuals and groups critical of The Church of Jesus Christ, that if cited will be outright dismissed and not regarded with any further comment, since they have been thoroughly debunked by numerous authors:
* Obediah Dogberry
* Eber D. Howe
* “Doctor” Philastus Hurlbut
* Ezra Booth
* Pomeroy Tucker
* John C. Bennett
* T. B. H. & Fanny Stenhouse
* Fawn M. Brodie
* Jerald & Sandra Tanner
* Dee Jay Nelson
* Wayne L. Cowdrey
* “Dr.” Walter R. Martin
* Ed Decker
* Dick Baer
* Dr. Charles Crane
* John Ankerberg & John Weldon
These critics can be balanced or compared with other non-Mormons.
* Jules Remy
* Richard Burton
* William Alexander Linn
* I. Woodbridge Riley
* Eduard Meyer
* Whitney R. Cross
* President Jimmy Carter
Let’s be careful here. No longer will lies and deceit be an “…uncontested, slam dunk” (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) from the ranks of anti-Mormons.
posted August 24, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Chief,
When a person posts anything, the implication is that they agree with it and believe it to be accurate. If that is not the case they should 1) refrain from making the post, 2) only post the portions that they agree with and believe to be accurate, or 3) specifically state what they disagree with or believe to be inaccurate.
I don’t like it when someone throws trash, and then claims that they are not responsible for the content of said trash.
Case in point your post of August 21, 2007 1:51 PM from the Watchman Expositor: Testing The Book of Mormon By Moroni 10:4, By Timothy Oliver on this thread.
And then on your August 21, 2007 5:10 PM post you asked “Can you give me an example where the logic of the article is in error?. . , but a concrete example of where the author of the piece committed a factual error. I will be glad to discuss any such assertion.”
To which I responded. I neither expressed nor implied that you were the author of the article. I never used quote marks. I only acknowledged you as the originator of the post. Perhaps you don’t like my style of point – counter point posting. If you have a better way to address a posting point by point I am all ears.
If you would prefer not to interact with me that is fine, then I would refrain from responding to your posts. Mike, BIO, B, etc. are perfectly capable of engaging you in dialog. However, I will not let fiction or falsehood go unaddressed if I am able to respond.
posted August 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm
CB,
LOL!!!! In my earlier gambling days, what you propose would be called “stacking the deck.”
However, in the spirit of open and honest debate, I will make every attempt to not post something from the aforementioned authors. Remember, though, if one of those authors made a mistake on one particular issue, it does not mean you can discount them across the board. I have posted numerous quotations from the Journal of Discourses from various Mormon apostles and prophets from Smith himself to Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce McConkie, and others, to be told by GB that the sermons I was quoting from were just their “opinions” and not part of the official canon (even though each one would say ‘it has been the accepted doctrine of the church…’), so it was not admissable as official Mormon doctrine or theology. Well, you guys have to give me some leeway, as well. A one-sided debate is a lecture, not a two-sided exchange.
And GB, I went back and re-read your counter to my ‘Moroni 10:4′ post. I’m sorry, but you did nothing to refute the author’s points, in my opinion. The most you could do was attack me for posting the article. Again, this is why I dislike debating with you. The whole article had an overriding concept as its base. You did not address that underlying premise, but chose to take a few sentences and dissect them. It is like I give you a frog to dissect; you open it up, point to the optic nerve and ask, “can you prove that is what you say it is?” You have to deal with the whole before you can take apart the insides. That is the difference between you and I: I like to look at and discuss entire concepts, and you like to spend your time poking about the minute details. You know what they say about the details…
posted August 24, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I have found these rules handy.
Here’s a related story. Truman Madsen, now retired as Richard L. Evans Professor of Christian Understanding at Brigham Young University, relates an instructive anecdote about a great New Testament scholar, Krister Stendahl. Stendahl, who taught at Harvard for many years and served as the dean of Harvard Divinity School, also spent a few years as the Lutheran bishop of Stockholm.
During Stendahl’s tenure there, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints built a temple nearby. As commonly happens when Mormons build a temple, there was complaining, puzzlement, and some opposition among the local people. Bishop Stendahl, who has Latter-day Saint friends and had visited Brigham Young University, reacted dramatically and quite unexpectedly.
He called a press conference, and held it in an LDS stake center. There, among other things, he outlined to the Swedish press three principles that he thought should govern our discussions of the religious beliefs of other people. Prof. Madsen, who was there, summarizes them as:
(1) If you want to know what others believe, ask them. Don’t ask their critics or their enemies.
(2) When looking at the religious faith of others, compare your best with their best, not their worst with your best.
(3) Always leave room for “holy envy.”
Some explanation and examples will make these three principles clearer.
The first should be fairly obvious. Enemies of a religious faith are unlikely to present it as its believers would. They are, in fact, quite likely to distort it and caricature it — unwittingly if they are honest, deliberately if (as all too often happens) they are unscrupulous and seek only a cheap and easy victory. This does not necessarily mean that there is no place for critics, or for listening to them. But if we really want to understand another religion, they should not be our first resource.
The second principle is “When looking at the religious faith of others, compare your best with their best, not their worst with your best.” We commonly hear people contrast the loving ethics taught by Jesus in the New Testament with the acts of self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. But it is not at all fair to compare our seldom-achieved moral ideal with horrid crimes that are, despite their prominence in the newspapers and on television, still relatively rare among the world’s hundreds of millions of Muslims. The butchery of the “Christian” crusades would be a more appropriate comparison to Islamic terrorism. And the death decree against Salman Rushdie should not be compared to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, but to the Inquisition and the burnings of heretics that punctuated the history of the West and lack real parallel in the Islamic East.
Stendahl reminded his Swedish audience of the human element that unavoidably affects even the most pure beliefs. If a religion is revealed, it is nonetheless revealed through fallible mortals. Alluding to the explanation on the title page of the Book of Mormon that “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men,” this eminent Lutheran theologian commented that such frankness increased his confidence in the book, rather than decreasing it.
Finally, Stendahl counseled his audience to leave room for what he termed “holy envy.” We can learn greatly from faithful practitioners and believers of other faiths. The loving, joyous reverence of Orthodox Jews for the Sabbath — far from the cold, mechanical legalism of the stereotype — challenges us whose observance of the Lord’s day is often routine and perfunctory. Likewise, we can profit by reflecting upon the Jewish passion for religious learning, the simplicity and service of the Mennonites, the heroism of Protestant missionaries under terribly difficult conditions, and the social idealism of Dorothy Day and her Catholic Worker movement.
Regarding Mormons and their temples, Stendahl suggested baptism for the dead as an object of “holy envy.” We do nothing for our dead, he said. It is as if we have forgotten them. In contrast, he observed, the Latter-day Saints seek to bring the blessings of Christ’s atonement even to the dead.
At a minimum, observing Krister Stendahl’s three principles would eliminate much of the religious strife in a world that is growing ever smaller and more interdependent and that can no longer afford such conflict.
posted August 25, 2007 at 11:40 am
When I look at the sectarian arrogance behind the declaration that Mormons aren’t Christian, I’m reminded that “Christian” is as much an adjective as a noun, and that many “Christians” – Mormons included – are anything but “Christian.”
Jesus said many things in his Sermon on the Mount, none of which had anything to do with Trinitarianism, a concept invented centuries after Jesus. Mormons are clearly not Trinitarians, but to make Trinitarianism the test of Christian authenticity is to reduce Christianity to a cult. If the best you can do – for a message – is to claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God Almighty, “Christianity” is no different from rival forms of pagan idolatry, except in the name of its idol.
Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish rabbi who spoke of reform, of getting back to the principles on which religious life was built. He spoke of unconditional love, of patience and longsuffering, of building bridges rather than seeking an eye for an eye. He spoke of praying for the right reason, and of doing good for goodness’ sake. He spoke of bringing about “the kingdom of God” on Earth – not through the construction of a religious orthodoxy or the establishment of a religious sect but through a complete change in the way people relate to one another.
Doctrinal disputations do not make you a Christian, and adopting ideas that others consider heretical or disagreeing with ideas others consider fundamental, cannot be the dividing line between what is “Christian” and what is not. Any group can arbitrarily dismiss another but in doing so, it completely misses the point of Jesus’s message and veers off on a path that is anything but “Christian.”
It is my hope that intelligent, reasonable, compassionate individuals – the world over – will adopt the ideas of Jesus, not the exclusionary, prejudicial, sectarian divisions of those who would decide which group can call itself “Christian.”
posted August 25, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Bill,
Thanks for your comments. We do get wrapped up sometimes in the smallest details that we can’t see the forest for the trees.
However, Jesus was far more than a Jewish rabbi. People throughout the centuries have claimed that he was a rabbi, a teacher, a prophet, or a good man who had keen insights to human behavior. But if you look at the claims Christ made about Himself, there are only three conclusions you can come to:
1) He’s a lunatic who has no grasp of reality;
2) He’s a liar who attributed powers and authority to himself that he did not possess, or;
3) He’s exactly who He claims to be, and that is the sovereign Son of God Almighty. Read the end of Revelation chapter 1 to encounter the glory of the risen Christ. In the gospel of John, Jesus claims to be the bread of life (6:35), the light of the world (8:12), the gate (whoever enters through Me will be saved, 10:9), the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep (10:11, 28-30), the resurrection and the life (He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in Me will never die, 11:25-26), the Way, the Truth, and the Life (No one comes to the Father except through Me, 14:6), and the vine (apart from Me you can do nothing, 15:5).
That is who Jesus is.
posted August 25, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Chief,
I think you might be missing the point of Bill Kilpatrick’s post?
Mormons agree with your recent post point #3…so where’s the beef? (sorry old 1980′s play on words).
We pin labels on others because it makes us comfortable when dealing outside our own paradigm of religious thought. The reality is that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary by means unknown to man, inheriting both mortal and divine characteristics; lived a sinless life; answered the demands of some divine law to pay for ALL of mankind’s sin (no one knows exactly how despite their best suppositions); his physical body lay in a tomb for 3 days (no need to debate the time here); He rose on the 3rd day, in a resurrected state and now stands at the right hand of God as God. I believe that, every Mormon believes that and have accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, Redeemer, and Advocate with the Father…and we accept Jesus’ biblical message of the two great commandments…Where does the “Mormon’s are not Christians” then materialize from evangelical Christianity…?
posted August 26, 2007 at 12:47 am
Pardon me for joining this debate rather late, but after being invited to look at the “Evangelicals for Mitt” website http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/ I thought I might put in my two cents worth. Let me add that I am not an Evangelical, and I am supporting another candidate for President.
Evangelicals are Protestants, and Protestants have generally held since the days of Martin Luther that Popes and Councils can err. Latter-day Saints do not believe that the decisions of Council of Nicaea should define Christianity. Evangelicals do not believe that the decisions of the Council of Trent should define Christianity. Nicaea is, of course, earlier than Trent. That makes the implied LDS critique of the established churches of the time deeper than the common Protestant position. The deepest LDS critique of Nicaea is not about specific wording but rather the lack of authority of the council. Nevertheless, I find it strange that for rejecting historical councils like Nicaea, the LDS are considered non-Christian by Protestants who believe that Popes and Council can and, indeed, did err and accordingly reject some historical councils.
Bill Kilpatrick (above) has an excellent point. The Nicene Creed is all about belief. The Sermon on the Mount is all about behavior. Which represents the authentic test of Christianity? And if the answer is The Sermon on the Mount, then does that not say there was some historic shift marked by Nicaea away from the original gospel?
posted August 26, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Chief: And GB, I went back and re-read your counter to my ‘Moroni 10:4′ post. I’m sorry, but you did nothing to refute the author’s points, in my opinion. The most you could do was attack me for posting the article.
GB: The record is there for all to see. I did refute the author’s foundational point and I DID NOT attack you. You revisionist spinning and claim of victimhood won’t work.
posted August 27, 2007 at 2:31 pm
GB,
You DID NOT refute the author’s foundational point. The directive in Moroni 10:4 is a self-fulfilling prophecy. ["And when ye shall receive these things [the Book of Mormon], I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”]
It sets itself up as a neutral test (ask God if these things ARE NOT true). If it stopped right there, it could be argued that it would be a valid test. But it then loads the dice in its favor! To anyone reading it, it says this: if you have a “sincere heart” and “real intent, having faith in Christ”, the truth of it will be made know to you by the Holy Spirit. Who could walk into such a test and make a sincere effort, when the answer to the test has already been given? What does this say to the person who gets a negative answer? One or more of three things: you don’t have a sincere heart, did not pray with real intent, and you don’t have faith in Christ. It wholly depends on a person’s subjective reasoning and not on any standard on which to base your decision.
In other words, here is a hypothesis that I want you to make a decision on whether it is true or not. However, if you are sincere and are really searching for the truth in Christ, then you will know its true. And if you conclude it’s not true, it isn’t because the hypothesis itself isn’t true, but it’s because you did not ask sincerely and/or you have no faith.
Contrast this with the conversation that the disciple Philip had with Jesus in John 14:
8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Jesus told Philip that it could be known that He was from the Father based on what He had been doing and on the evidence of the miracles he had done. In other words, ‘base your belief, if not just in My words, on the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of the miracles that I have done, which you have seen.’
I believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Did I see it? No. Then why do I believe? I base this on several things:
1) The Bible says it happened
2) There were a number of witnesses to the resurrected Christ
3) It is my basis for the hope of eternal life – no resurrection, no eternal life.
4) The crucifixion of Christ was one of the better reported events in the ancient world. It has been estimated that there were over 6,000 people on Golgotha that day, and Josephus and other historians recorded the event, and there were many extra-biblical eyewitness testimonies, including the earth shaking and darkness for three hours.
5) The disciples had scattered after Jesus was arrested; they abandoned and denied him to save their own skins. After the crucifixion, they were hiding behind locked doors and windows because of fear for their own lives. Yet soon after Jesus was resurrected these scared men came out of hiding, boldly going down the streets of Jerusalem, Judea, and the surrounding countryside proclaiming the resurrected Christ. They continued to do so after being beaten, flogged, arrested, and threatened with death. All except for John died martyr’s deaths, being crucified, stabbed with spears and swords, etc. Would these uneducated, common men brave all of these things if they did not absolutely believe that what they were preaching was the truth? Then we have Paul, who was beaten, imprisoned, flogged, ship-wrecked, and stoned and left for dead for the sake of the gospel.
6) Once the gospel was being preached, the Jewish authorities could not produce any evidence to refute it. If they had had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it immediately to crush the fledgling church. If Jesus’ body was still in the tomb, they would have gone to get it. However, the body wasn’t there, and if the disciples had stolen it away, as the authorities claimed, they still would not have died for what they would have known was a hoax and a lie.
Does the Holy Spirit play a large part in my faith? Absolutely! Does He grant me wisdom and understanding, so I can understand the truths revealed in Scripture? You betcha! He testifies to me in my soul that these things are true. But He does so also using the empirical evidence available that attests to the fact that the things written in Scripture are God’s truth. I can believe these things are true because God has revealed them in His word, and He has also given us evidence outside of that written word that also indicate its truthfulness. I can be assured of the truth through the written word, and the events that took place to attest to its truthfulness.
posted August 27, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Chief: “the Jewish authorities could not produce any evidence to refute it. If they had had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it immediately to crush the fledgling church. If Jesus’ body was still in the tomb, they would have gone to get it. However, the body wasn’t there…”
BIO: How does your belief system answer the question, “Where is Jesus’ Body?”
Secondly,
Chief: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
BIO: From the Lord’s intercessory prayer: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for THEM also which shall believe on ME through their word; That THEY ALL may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE in thee, that they also may be ONE is US; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the GLORY which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be ONE, even as WE are ONE: I in THEM, and THOU in me, that THEY may be made perfect in ONE…” (John 17:20-23).
How does your belief system reconcile the ONENESS of The Father, The Son and…US? And why could your quote of John 14 not also be referring to this same oneness so that Jesus by divine investiture IS the Father?
posted August 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm
BIO,
I am not sure I quite follow your line of questioning, but I will answer the questions you posed:
-How does my “belief system” answer the question ‘Where is Jesus’ body?’
LOL. I didn’t know I was or had a “belief system.” What I have is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It’s not so much a “system” or a group of theological principles as it is living my life according to the love of Christ that is in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Anyway, where is Jesus’ body? Right where it should be – standing at the right hand of God the Father, interceding for us day and night, for scripture says that our adversary the devil stands before the Lord accusing the brethren day and night. Jesus’ physical body (which is His new, immortal resurrection body as described by John in Revelation 1) is there by God’s side, where He gives testimony that everyone who is saved is His.
-How do I reconcile the oneness of the Father, Son, …and US? Quite simply, actually. Jesus says several times that He and the Father are one. Does this mean that Jesus IS the Father? How could He be, when other places He says that He did not come to do His own work, but the work of the one who SENT Him? Also, when Jesus went off by Himself to pray, who was He praying to? Himself? When He asked the Father if the cup could be taken from him, was He asking Himself a rhetorical question? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit – three distinct persons in the Godhead. When we believe in the Son, we are called God’s children, so we become united in spirit and purpose with God. We do not BECOME God, but we become His through divine adoption into His family. Therefore, we are united with Him through His love, mercy, and grace. That is why the church is called ONE body – are we all the same, or are we separate entities? Yet we have unity in the Spirit and are all called the body of Christ, not the bodies of Christ. One body, one head, one will. That is oneness.
posted August 27, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Chief,
Great! So semantics aside, we both seem to believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost as three separate and distinct beings who are united in an ultimate “Oneness” as described in John 14 and 17 and others. Can we agree that this is biblical?
Could you also say then, that the ‘Oneness’ of these three distinct beings could be known as ONE God, just as your analogy of the church being ONE body? And further, that this ‘Oneness’ could be, among all other holy attributes of theirs, is to save humanity from their fallen and sinful condition…a condition initiated by the Fall of Adam, and perpetuated by our own carnal and sinful natures?
Finally, as a follow-on to your statement, “…we have unity in the Spirit…” can you also explain for me what you mean by “the Spirit”? I know this seems elemental, but, we are seeking commonality here and not “doctrinal differences”; does this “Spirit” flow from one or all three of these separate and distinct Holy beings?
thanks
posted August 28, 2007 at 12:05 am
Chief,
One more thing…John 5:19 states that Jesus does nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do…
If Jesus Christ stands at the right hand of God (I presume you mean God the Father) and He does so with his resurrected body, glorified, and we agree that He is God the Son, then is it stretching beyond acceptable reasoning that perhaps His resurrection with a body IS “doing” the same thing His Father did? Which would mean that God The Father also has a glorified, resurrected Body? After all, Christ’s resurrection was never done before…And something that miraculous must surely qualify worthy of falling into the category of “doing…what he sees the Father do…”
posted August 28, 2007 at 10:51 am
Chief: It sets itself up as a neutral test (ask God if these things ARE NOT true). If it stopped right there, it could be argued that it would be a valid test.
GB: It is a valid test. Millions have used it and found it to be valid. You haven’t used it so you have no standing.
Chief: But it then loads the dice in its favor!
GB: Ah, now you add a few words to try and poison the well.
Chief: To anyone reading it, it says this: if you have a “sincere heart” and “real intent, having faith in Christ”, the truth of it will be made know to you by the Holy Spirit.
GB: How true that statement is, for God will not reveal the truth to the insincere heart or to those with no intention of following the truth. Are you in that group? Your refusal to even read the Book of Mormon does call into question your sincerity.
Chief: Who could walk into such a test and make a sincere effort,. . .
GB: Anyone with a sincere heart, who really wants to know the truth and is willing to follow the truth once it is made known to them.
Chief: when the answer to the test has already been given?
GB: How so? Did the Holy Ghost already give a witness to the reader during the reading process?
Chief: What does this say to the person who gets a negative answer? One or more of three things: you don’t have a sincere heart, did not pray with real intent, and you don’t have faith in Christ.
GB: Any one of the three could preclude the Holy Ghost from revealing the truth (no casting pearls before swine so to speak).
Chief: It wholly depends on a person’s subjective reasoning and not on any standard on which to base your decision.
GB: What a bunch of gibberish. The witness of the Holy Ghost is not “a person’s subjective reasoning”, but it is a “standard on which to base your decision”.
Chief: In other words, here is a hypothesis that I want you to make a decision on whether it is true or not. However, if you are sincere and are really searching for the truth in Christ, then you will know its true.
GB: Of course, because it is true. You haven’t read it (with a sincere heart). You haven’t prayed about it (with real intent). So you have no standing to make a judgment about the validity of the promise.
Chief: And if you conclude it’s not true, it isn’t because the hypothesis itself isn’t true, but it’s because you did not ask sincerely and/or you have no faith.
GB: Or you don’t have real intent.
Chief: Contrast this with the conversation that the disciple Philip had with Jesus in . . .. In other words, ‘base your belief, if not just in My words, on the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of the miracles that I have done, which you have seen.’
GB: The very existence of the Book of Mormon is “empirical evidence”. It is the “elephant in the room” so to speak. The most plausible explanation for its existence is that given by Joseph Smith.
Chief: I believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Did I see it? No. Then why do I believe? I base this on several things:
1) The Bible says it happened
GB: So does the Book of Mormon. Why don’t you believe it?
Chief: 2) There were a number of witnesses to the resurrected Christ
GB: All of your witnesses are from the Bible, so you are back to the Bible (one witness). I have two witnesses.
Chief: 3) It is my basis for the hope of eternal life – no resurrection, no eternal life.
GB: So you believe it because you want to believe it, and on only one witness.
Chief: 4) The crucifixion of Christ was one of the better reported events in the ancient world. It has been estimated that there were over 6,000 people on Golgotha that day, and Josephus and other historians recorded the event, and there were many extra-biblical eyewitness testimonies, including the earth shaking and darkness for three hours.
GB: But none of them witnessed to the resurrection.
Chief: 5) The disciples had scattered after Jesus was arrested; they abandoned and denied him to save their own skins. After the crucifixion, they were hiding behind locked doors and windows because of fear for their own lives. Yet soon after Jesus was resurrected these scared men came out of hiding, boldly going down the streets of Jerusalem, Judea, and the surrounding countryside proclaiming the resurrected Christ. They continued to do so after being beaten, flogged, arrested, and threatened with death. All except for John died martyr’s deaths, being crucified, stabbed with spears and swords, etc. Would these uneducated, common men brave all of these things if they did not absolutely believe that what they were preaching was the truth? Then we have Paul, who was beaten, imprisoned, flogged, ship-wrecked, and stoned and left for dead for the sake of the gospel.
GB: All of that is only found in the Bible so again you are back to one witness.
Chief: 6) Once the gospel was being preached, the Jewish authorities could not produce any evidence to refute it. If they had had the body of Jesus, they would have produced it immediately to crush the fledgling church. If Jesus’ body was still in the tomb, they would have gone to get it. However, the body wasn’t there, and if the disciples had stolen it away, as the authorities claimed, they still would not have died for what they would have known was a hoax and a lie.
GB: The same is true about Joseph Smith. He and His brother died for their witness of Jesus Christ.
Chief: Does the Holy Spirit play a large part in my faith? Absolutely! Does He grant me wisdom and understanding, so I can understand the truths revealed in Scripture? You betcha! He testifies to me in my soul that these things are true. But He does so also using the empirical evidence available that attests to the fact that the things written in Scripture are God’s truth. I can believe these things are true because God has revealed them in His word, and He has also given us evidence outside of that written word that also indicate its truthfulness. I can be assured of the truth through the written word, and the events that took place to attest to its truthfulness.
GB: And yet you don’t trust the Holy Ghost to reveal to you the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. You live in fear that it might be true and that if you test it properly you will have to change. The peer pressure you face must be significant.
I actually didn’t need to test Moroni’s promise. When I read the Book of Mormon the Holy Ghost witnessed to me of its truthfulness as I read. And even now every time I read from it, the Spirit again testifies to me. You are letting your fear keep you from experiencing even more of Gods goodness and love.
posted August 28, 2007 at 12:17 pm
BIO,
I can’t agree to your first point, that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct, separate persons. I went back and looked for passages that state that God is One. Here are some examples:
Mark 12:29-31 “The most important one,” answered JESUS, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE. (emphasis mine) Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
2 Samuel 7:22″How great you are, O Sovereign LORD! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears.
Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one Father ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
John 1:17-18 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
Romans 3:29-30 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Now for believing there is a Trinity, a unity of the Godhead – one God, 3 persons:
I Cor 8:4-6 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (By “gods” and “lords” Paul is referring to both idols, the pantheon of “gods” worshipped by the Greeks and Romans, and to men who had taken those titles up for themselves. “lords” refers to the Baalim, or the several idols that went by the title of Baal, or lord, such as Baal Peor, (Numbers 25:3) Baal Zephon, (Exodus 14:2) Baal Zebub, (2 Kings 1:2) Baal Berith, (Judges 8:33)[John Gill Commentary]).
2 Cor 13:14 “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.”
Matt 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
Hebrews 9:14 “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”
That is why I don’t think ONENESS means three separate gods doing the same thing. That ONENESS to me springs from the fact that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit emanate from the same divine essence. If they were 3 separate beings, Jesus would not have echoed Moses’ declaration in Deut 6:4 “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one” in Mark 12:29. In John’s gospel, Jesus goes to great lengths to confirm His own deity, yet He remains subservient to the Father, even to the point of death on the cross. Thus each person in the Godhead has a particular role to play – Jesus is not inferior to the Father or superior to the Holy Spirit, but He obeys the will of the Father as an example for us to follow. Likewise, the Spirit is not inferior, but His role is to teach us the truth about the Father and the Son. He is the comforter who assures us of God’s presence with us and in us, convicts us when we sin and leads us back to repentance, grants us understanding of God’s will, and guides us on the path of righteousness. He is not some impersonal force, but Jesus in the gospel of John attributes a consciousness and a personality to Him.
What I mean by Unity of the Spirit is that the body of believers will have a ONENESS about them if they are allowing the Holy Spirit to rule on the thrones of their lives. In the early church, it says in Acts 4:
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
The believers were ONE in heart and mind. That is what I mean when I speak of the unity of the Spirit.
To answer your last point on John 5:19, I actually have talked about that before. John Gill puts it like this:
“for whatsoever things he doth, these also doth the Son likewise;
the Son does the selfsame works as the Father does, such as the works of creation and providence, the government both of the church, and of the world; and he does these things in like manner, with the same power, and by the same authority, his Father does, and which proves him to be equal with him; the very thing the Jews understood him to have asserted, and which they charged him with: and this he strongly maintained. The Syriac version reads, “for the things which the Father does, the same also does the Son”; and the Persic version, “whatsoever God has done, the Son also does like unto it”.
When Jesus sees the Father and does likewise, it means that He is in perfect accordance with the Father’s will. It does not mean, I don’t think, that Jesus saw the Father have a body of flesh and did likewise. The point of Jesus having a body of flesh is spoken of in Hebrews 4:15:
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”
We can go to Jesus because He has lived life in the flesh; He knows what it is to be hungry, to be thirsty, to be tired, to be heartbroken, to be glad, and to be angry. And He knows what it is like to be tempted in every way – pride, greed, lust, envy, thirst for power, revenge, contempt, you name it, He faced it. Yet He overcame the world for our sakes, so that through Him we might share in God’s riches.
posted August 28, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Chief,
Ok…back to square two.
We seem to be stuck in this interplay of concrete data with theoretical concepts.
When God the Son was in Mary’s womb, who was minding the universe? God the Father of course.
When Jesus Christ was Baptized and looked up he saw the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove (representational since the Holy Ghost did not have a physical body) and heard the voice of God the Father…
I can’t cross that bridge of your Trinitarian view simply because you have had to come up with your own cognitive solution (non-biblical) for this “three separate, yet ONE God” idea, that you have termed God’s “essence”. By the way does that word come from the same root word meaning nonsense? Sorry, just joking, somewhat.
You won’t accept John 17′s definition of the Oneness of God as being what Jesus Himself explains since He likens His own oneness with God to our gaining that same oneness and all of us eventually becoming ONE…but you go outside the bible to craft the trinitarian viewpoint, simply because, I believe, tradition, tradition, tradition.
If three beings manifest themselves as three separate entities at the same time…Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…then why so hard to accept that they are ONE God in Purpose (absolutely, perfectly, totally aligned with one another…never to do anything contrary to one another) yet, three God’s in tangible substance, with separate identities, essence, and personalities. Short of this, and meaning no disrespect, but isn’t that described today as a multiple personality disorder marked by dissociation & withdrawal…that’s just not right, and it’s not biblical despite all the One God verses of scripture in the bible combined! Once again, this is, I believe, the consummate argument for the need of a Prophet of God (and I mean God’s mouthpiece type prophet) to clarify so important a distinction…
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, AND (my emphasis) Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3 It is so important to know the TRUE character of God, that eternal life depends on it! That to me is some heavy justification to figure this out correctly.
Lastly, your explanation of “unity of the Spirit” was very weak to me. John Gill (although probably a good man) means nothing to me, so what he says is simply apochryphal opinion. Let’s stick to the Bible.
Were you simply talking in an ‘espirt de corps’ (a sense of unity and of common interests and responsibilities, as developed among a group of persons closely associated in a task, cause, enterprise, etc.) sense? That’s all the “Spirit” means to you, a coming together?
Or, were you speaking in a more literal sense, as in the Holy Ghost essence of God, as a separate thinking personality, moving upon us to do God the Father’s bidding? Help me out here.
posted August 28, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Chief: John Gill puts it like this:
“for whatsoever things he doth, these also doth the Son likewise;
the Son does the selfsame works as the Father does, such as the works of creation and providence, the government both of the church, and of the world; and he does these things in like manner, with the same power, and by the same authority, his Father does, and which proves him to be equal with him; the very thing the Jews understood him to have asserted, and which they charged him with: and this he strongly maintained.
GB: Jesus NEVER asserted that He was equal with God the Father. But He did assert that he was a separate being from the Father.
John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is GREATER than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is GREATER than I. (emphasis mine)
Who is John Gill that I should believe anything he says?
posted August 28, 2007 at 9:08 pm
GB
Who are you that I should believe anything you say? (LOL just kidding)
I can produce verses from the Bible that say that Jesus was equal with God
Philippians2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
Apparently the Bible SEEMS to be in contradiction or is it?
Is something still true if it contradicts itself?
You might argue that this is the reason we need additional revelation from God and more scripture from God. But in saying that you have done nothing to reconcile the verses you quoted and I quoted.
I argue that this is the reason one one needs to do a careful exegetical study of the Bible to truly understand it. Thus we need the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom in understanding the Bible, and wisdom to keep our own thoughts and ideas out of what God is trying to say. It is foolish to run off to some other source and claim it to be Scripture because you say the Bible is not enough, without first properly studying the Bible to begin with.
If the Bible really contradicted it self it would not be true regardless of how much extra biblical scriptures you propose.
Can you prove the Bible is incomplete?
Please don’t answer “well it doesn’t say it is complete”
you and I both know that something doesn’t have to say it is complete to be complete. I read books all the time that are considered to be complete yet they don’t state that they are.
posted August 28, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Luke,
How do you know the Bible is accurate & complete? And please don’t say, “Well, because my Pastor says so.”
It constantly amazes me how otherwise highly intelligent persons throw all reason to the wind when it comes to challenging the Bible’s inerrancy, even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. But this has been discussed ad nauseum on these threads.
You want proof of the Book of Mormon, yet accept the Bible without ANY original source documents–at all! Seems a double standard here.
John 21:25, states:
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
Well, if he did “other things” why is it inconceivable that He might reveal some of them at a latter time? Would that not be scripture…
well, again, when talking about the infallible Bible, it is clear that this is a modern day assertion and NOT a return to traditional Christian belief, to wit,
“It is clear that Calvin cannot be credited with the scriptural literalism affirmed by present-day fundamentalists. Nor, indeed, can any other major figure in the history of Christian thought prior to 1800. Contrary to fundamentalists claims, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as they have formulated it is not a return to primitive Christianity or to Christian orthodoxy. Rather, it was an innovation fashioned scarcely more than a hundred years ago as a weapon to be used against the modernist movement.” [Lloyd J. Averill, Religious Right, Religious Wrong: A Critique of the Fundamentalist Phenomenon, Pilgrim Books, New York, 1989, pp. 73-74, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 127.]
posted August 28, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Luke: I can produce verses from the Bible that say that Jesus was equal with God
GB: True, as you did so. I was aware of them but notice that they are not quoting Jesus. So as I said before Jesus NEVER claimed to be equal to God the Father. He always claimed that God the Father was greater. He did claim to be I AM (Jehovah God or Lord God) which did cause a stir amongst the Jews.
Luke: Apparently the Bible SEEMS to be in contradiction or is it?
GB: The apparent contradictions are due to 1) a misunderstanding of the doctrines being discussed or 2) a mistranslation or a transcription error of the autographs (of which we have none).
Luke: I argue that this is the reason one one needs to do a careful exegetical study of the Bible to truly understand it. Thus we need the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom in understanding the Bible, and wisdom to keep our own thoughts and ideas out of what God is trying to say.
GB: I agree whole heartedly with your second sentence, for with the guidance of the Holy Spirit your first sentence is less important.
Luke: It is foolish to run off to some other source and claim it to be Scripture because you say the Bible is not enough, without first properly studying the Bible to begin with.
GB: The problem is that far too many people put their own interpretations into the Bible or have been prejudiced because of what they have been taught, so then they THINK it is the Holy Spirit guiding them when it isn’t. If it were not so, there wouldn’t be so many churches teaching different doctrines. Going outside of the Bible isn’t the problem, after all Paul (and all of the other Apostles) didn’t get his knowledge of the gospel from the New Testament, but from revelation (the personal tutoring from God).
Luke: Can you prove the Bible is incomplete?
GB: The existence of so many different churches that believe in the Bible is prima facie evidence that the Bible is insufficient. If it is insufficient then can it be complete?
BTW I can show numerous books that are mentioned in the Bible that are not in the Bible. I have already posted that list but if you desire I can post it again.
PLUS you have this to consider:Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Why don’t we have a record of what Jesus taught for forty days? What did He teach? It must have been important.
posted August 29, 2007 at 9:11 am
GB,
There is an old saying, “Speak up where the Bible speaks up, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” If what Jesus taught during those 40 days was vital to us, it would be in Scripture. Since it is not, it is safe to conjecture that He was building up those He was teaching but not giving them new directions, commands, or revelations.
As for Jesus equating Himself with God, how about this:
John 8:57-58 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Who is the great I AM? The same God who met Moses in the burning bush, Yahweh.
You see, as for the Trinitarian view, I cannot get around the fact that the Scripture lists over 50 times that GOD IS ONE. Not one in purpose, nor one in unity, nor one in heart and mind, but there is only ONE GOD. Therefore, if there are 3 people who claim Godlike status, and there is only ONE God, we have a conundrum; either two of them are lying, or all 3 are lying, or all 3 are part of the same entity.
When Jesus was born physically, who was minding the store, you ask? If God dwelt in the body, how could He still be in control of the universe from heaven? Because He is God. God is all-powerful, and He can do what He wants whenever He wants to. How can His Spirit indwell every believer, which number in the tens of millions at the present time? Because God the Father and God the Holy Spirit can be everywhere at once. How can He hear and answer millions upon millions of prayers from the saints every minute of every day? Because He is God. How can He intervene in someone’s life in Boise, Idaho, and be stirring in someone’s life in Ghana at exactly the same time? Because He is God. I don’t presume to understand it all, but I have seen His power at work personally, in my life and in the lives of others around me.
To end, here is a short biography on John Gill:
John Gill (November 23, 1697 – October 14, 1771) was an English Baptist and a biblical scholar. He was born in Kettering, Northamptonshire. In his youth, he attended Kettering grammar school, mastering the Latin classics and learning Greek by age eleven. The young scholar continued self-study in everything from logic to Hebrew. His love for Hebrew would follow Gill throughout his life.
In 1748, Gill was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity by the University of Aberdeen. He was a profound scholar and a prolific author. His most important works are:
The Doctrine of the Trinity Stated and Vindicated (London, 1731)
The Cause of God and Truth (4 parts, 1735-1738), a retort to Daniel Whitby’s Five Points
An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols., 1746-1748), which with his Exposition of the Old Testament (6 vols., 1748-1763) forms his magnum opus
A Dissertation on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language (1767)
A Body of Doctrinal Divinity (1767)
A Body of Practical Divinity (1770).
posted August 29, 2007 at 10:22 am
Chief,
It probably never crossed your mind that most Mormons carefully, thoughtfully, and faithfully studied the doctrine before joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But then these entire threads of discussion were not intended to be about doctrine, but to discuss whether or not Mormons are Christians. Since evangelicals refuse to consider the possibility that the Bible is incomplete due to translation and transcription errs, is missing truths other wise taught by Jesus and His Prophets and Apostles (John 21:25), or is less than perfect in every way, then by necessity their persistent stubborness will remain their stumbling block…they have enough, and need no more.
I’ll end with these words of a Prophet of God who explained the path to Eternal Life after entering the ‘Strait and narrow path’ of Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost…
“Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in CHRIST, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of CHRIST, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.” “…and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God, and now, behold, this is the doctrine of CHRIST, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is ONE God, without end. Amen.” (Book of Mormon, pp. 114-115).
And so I move on to others who are searching for the complete truth of God, those who are prepared and ready to receive ‘the greater portion’ of God’s truth, those who have grown through the milk of the gospel, and are now prepared for the meat of the gospel of Jesus Christ…
May you live to enjoy happiness in this life, and eternal life in the life to come…:)
posted August 29, 2007 at 4:49 pm
BIO,
Hey, have a nice life yourself.
BIO, I have met many more Mormons and ex-Mormons than you realize. Some did not join until they knew everything; many more, however, joined because of the hook “families can be together forever.” (As a side note, I point out that how can that be possible? If I am an exalted Mormon man, and enter the Celestial heaven, don’t I receive a kingdom to populate with spirit-children with my wife or wives? And if I have a son who is exalted, won’t he get his own kingdom, and thus be away from me? And if my daughters marry good Mormon men who get exalted, won’t they join their husbands in their new kingdoms [if their husbands call their names to bring them up] and be away from me?). These families were not initiated into the theology contained in the D&C and PGP until later, after they had attended for some months and established a good record of tithing. They were then introduced to the Doctrines and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Some stayed in and are still there; some rejected the teachings and left the church. But whereas the gospel message is simple, and is up to a person to accept or reject, the gospel according to Mormonism is more labyrinthic and all is not apparent on the surface.
Although I have problems with the contradictions between the BoM and the Bible (the story of Adam and Eve; sinless children [Moroni 8:8] vs. our sinful nature from birth [Ps 51:5]; the curse of Cain and black skin [2 Nephi 5:21] being inferior to white folks vs. all men came from one blood [Acts 17:26], etc.), they are nothing to the problems I have with the theology in Smith’s later writings. That is why the Bible and the Book of Mormon cannot both be true; they contradict one another throughout, so they both could not have come from the same source, unless that source is capricious and has a wicked sense of humor.
Which brings up another point, that I really have wondered about; If I can become a god, and rule my own planet, and have spirit children who go on to populate that planet, what scripture is used then? If the new kingdoms are not exactly like earth, with the same names and places, then the Bible and the Book of Mormon would be meaningless to the the people there. What scripture(s) would they use to be exalted? That is not a snide comment, it brings up a serious theological question. Does each exalted man get to propogate his own gospel once he achieves godhood status?
BIO, I have to say that no one on this thread, even after hundreds of posts, has ever spelled out exactly what “truths” non-Mormons are missing out on. What is the “greater portion” and “spiritual meat” of God’s truth, truth that cannot be found in the Bible?
You say that the Bible cannot be inerrant due to translation and transcription errors – none of which is provable, because you don’t have the originals of the OT to compare the current text to, although we do have originals of the NT texts. So even if there are errors in the OT translations, there certainly shouldn’t be any in the NT, because we have the originals. So the gospel records should not be missing anything. What is there to add to them?
Using your same logic, you certainly can’t prove the Book of Mormon is inerrant and without errors. We definitely don’t have the original text (the plates), and only one partial copy of a small portion of it remains, a portion that modern Egyptologists have rendered undecipherable. Add to that the myriad changes to the text since 1830 (I was studying up on the 1978 revelation, and the 1981 edition of the BoM changed “white” skinned to “fair” in Nephi in describing the changing color of the Lamanites when they converted – this is among the other 3,900 changes to the text that WERE NOT punctuation or grammatical errors. A full accounting of these changes are available on many, many websites on the internet). Therefore, how can the promise of Moroni 10:4 hold true when the book has undergone so many changes?
But like you said, to each his own. I happen to believe that I already have the complete fullness of the Gospel as revealed to me by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. I also have a freedom in Christ that you do not similarly enjoy, a freedom apart from the law. My prayer is that you will come to know and embrace this freedom as well.
Have a good evening, and God Bless…
posted August 29, 2007 at 6:55 pm
GB
You said:
GB: I agree whole heartedly with your second sentence, for with the guidance of the Holy Spirit your first sentence is less important.
In reference to my statement:
Luke: I argue that this is the reason one one needs to do a careful exegetical study of the Bible to truly understand it. Thus we need the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom in understanding the Bible, and wisdom to keep our own thoughts and ideas out of what God is trying to say.
What exactly is your opinion of biblical exegesis?
posted August 29, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Chief,
Ah, you want quantum mechanics without first learning and accepting arithmetic…
Sorry, but you’re not ready to be weaned from milk yet!
posted August 29, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Chief said:
I have met many more Mormons and ex-Mormons than you realize. Some did not join until they knew everything;
Mike Bennion:
Pearl of Great Price: Articles of Faith 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
If God is consistent God is never done talking to us. As a Father would you just suddenly stop talking to your children? Why would you do that? I hate to break it to you but nobody “knows everything” except God. I am excited to see what else God has in store for us.
1st Cor 2:9 But as it is written, aEye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath bprepared for them that love him.
Chief:
many more, however, joined because of the hook “families can be together forever.” (As a side note, I point out that how can that be possible? If I am an exalted Mormon man, and enter the Celestial heaven, don’t I receive a kingdom to populate with spirit-children with my wife or wives? And if I have a son who is exalted, won’t he get his own kingdom, and thus be away from me? And if my daughters marry good Mormon men who get exalted, won’t they join their husbands in their new kingdoms [if their husbands call their names to bring them up] and be away from me?).
Mike Bennion:
Chief, why are you putting man’s limited perspective on God?
Read John Chapters 14 to 17 again carefully. When we become one we know all things together with Jesus and His Father. The communication is instant and total. How does God answer billions of paryers all at once? Same thing Chief. God is not comprehensible to us now, but:
1st John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the asons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall bappear, we shall be clike him; for we shall dsee him as he is.
Chief:
These families were not initiated into the theology contained in the D&C and PGP until later, after they had attended for some months and established a good record of tithing. They were then introduced to the Doctrines and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Some stayed in and are still there; some rejected the teachings and left the church. But whereas the gospel message is simple, and is up to a person to accept or reject, the gospel according to Mormonism is more labyrinthic and all is not apparent on the surface.
Mike Bennion:
Chief, I have been a Missionary, a Ward Mission Leader, a Stake Mission President and in a Bishopric and on a High Council. Your scenario of how the Gopel is introduced is not accurate. I know. I have taught it. I teach it now. If we withhold everything like that, why am I quoting the Pearl of Great Price now?
Chief:
Although I have problems with the contradictions between the BoM and the Bible (the story of Adam and Eve; sinless children [Moroni 8:8] vs. our sinful nature from birth [Ps 51:5]; the curse of Cain and black skin [2 Nephi 5:21] being inferior to white folks vs. all men came from one blood [Acts 17:26], etc.), they are nothing to the problems I have with the theology in Smith’s later writings. That is why the Bible and the Book of Mormon cannot both be true; they contradict one another throughout, so they both could not have come from the same source, unless that source is capricious and has a wicked sense of humor.
Mike Bennion:
I find rather that the Book of Mormon and the other Standard Works make the Bible much clearer. If you wish to go into detail scripture by scripture I will be very happy to oblige.
Chief:
Which brings up another point, that I really have wondered about; If I can become a god, and rule my own planet, and have spirit children who go on to populate that planet, what scripture is used then? If the new kingdoms are not exactly like earth, with the same names and places, then the Bible and the Book of Mormon would be meaningless to the the people there. What scripture(s) would they use to be exalted? That is not a snide comment, it brings up a serious theological question. Does each exalted man get to propogate his own gospel once he achieves godhood status?
Mike Bennion:
The Gospel is the same, and the Gospel is Eternal. Again go read John 17 carefully. Just because the specific scripture may be called by some other title the gospel is the same. The plan is the same and it is eternal.
Chief:
I have to say that no one on this thread, even after hundreds of posts, has ever spelled out exactly what “truths” non-Mormons are missing out on. What is the “greater portion” and “spiritual meat” of God’s truth, truth that cannot be found in the Bible?
Mike Bennion:
The ordinances of the Priesthood, and the power thereof, leading to eternal life together as family units. to put it briefly.
Chief:
You say that the Bible cannot be inerrant due to translation and transcription errors – none of which is provable, because you don’t have the originals of the OT to compare the current text to, although we do have originals of the NT texts. So even if there are errors in the OT translations, there certainly shouldn’t be any in the NT, because we have the originals. So the gospel records should not be missing anything. What is there to add to them?
Mike Bennion:
You do not have “originals” of the NT texts. Even the Nag Hammadi and Pseudopigraphic ancient texts are at best copies of copies of copies.
You need big time documentation on this statement.
Chief:
Using your same logic, you certainly can’t prove the Book of Mormon is inerrant and without errors.
Mike Bennion:
Nor does the Book of Mormon itself or Joseph Smith or any Church authority make that claim for the Book. You are trying to set up a straw man here.
Chief:
We definitely don’t have the original text (the plates), and only one partial copy of a small portion of it remains, a portion that modern Egyptologists have rendered undecipherable.
Mike Bennion:
That’s because the Book of Mormon authors explained that they had altered the language to suit their particular culture and needs and no one else knew their language. It was “the learning of the Jews and the Language of the Egyptians” further modified to suit it’s usage. That’s why God provided a prophet to translate it.
Chief:
Add to that the myriad changes to the text since 1830 (I was studying up on the 1978 revelation, and the 1981 edition of the BoM changed “white” skinned to “fair” in Nephi in describing the changing color of the Lamanites when they converted
Mike Bennion:
Hugh Nibley has pointed out that the Arab expressions for good and bad even in modern usage are “white” and “black” See the Book “Since Cumorah”. So this is yet another case of Joseph using the idiom of the desert tribes in which Lehi would have been at home. Another support for the authenticity of the Book that you should try to explain.
Chief:
this is among the other 3,900 changes to the text that WERE NOT punctuation or grammatical errors. A full accounting of these changes are available on many, many websites on the internet). Therefore, how can the promise of Moroni 10:4 hold true when the book has undergone so many changes?
Mike Bennion:
And again the Book of Mormon does not claim perfection for itself “if there are mistakes they are the mistakes of men”. We don’t need to defend the Book of Mormon as pergfect because there is no such claim.
If you try to defend the Bible as inerrant, however, you do need to answer this charge.
Chief:
But like you said, to each his own. I happen to believe that I already have the complete fullness of the Gospel as revealed to me by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. I also have a freedom in Christ that you do not similarly enjoy, a freedom apart from the law. My prayer is that you will come to know and embrace this freedom as well.
Mike Bennion:
And what happened to “doers of the word justified that we spoke of over on the other thread. The grace of Christ does free us, but he requires our obedience. If the Bible is all that there is, by your definition and yet God tells us in the Bible that his pattern is revelation to prophets and he is eternally the same, then you are missing something. If this is not true then you should write one single book of instructions to your own children, never add to it again, and stop talking to them. Because that is what you are tryingf to defend.
Chief:
Have a good evening, and God Bless…
Mike:
And you as well.
posted August 29, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Chief: There is an old saying, “Speak up where the Bible speaks up, and be silent where the Bible is silent.”
GB: Interesting statement coming from you. Shall we keep that statement in mind while discussing the doctrine of the “trinity”. Can you show me a scripture that clearly and plainly says that the Holy Ghost is God?
Chief: If what Jesus taught during those 40 days was vital to us, it would be in Scripture.
GB: It would be scripture, but that doesn’t mean that it would be in the Bible! Not all scripture of the early church made it into the Bible.
Chief: Since it is not, it is safe to conjecture that He was building up those He was teaching but not giving them new directions, commands, or revelations.
GB: “it is safe to conjecture”. Oh really and what evidence do you have that this is so? Since we don’t have it you can’t tell me what it contained or what its importance was to the early church.
Chief: As for Jesus equating Himself with God, how about this: . . .
GB: You didn’t read my post carefully did you?
Chief: . . . I cannot get around the fact that the Scripture lists over 50 times that GOD IS ONE.
GB: I would like to see that list of over 50 times that “GOD IS ONE” is in the Bible.
Chief: . . . and God the Holy Spirit can be . . .
GB: I am looking forward to seeing that Bible scripture I asked for above.
Chief: I don’t presume to understand it all, . . .
GB: And yet you claim that others that disagree with you are wrong.
So John Gill is neither a prophet nor an apostle so again why should I believe him?
posted August 29, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Luke: What exactly is your opinion of biblical exegesis?
GB: The only true and accurate biblical exegesis is done by the Holy Ghost. That is how scripture is given. That is the only sure way to understand it.
posted August 30, 2007 at 12:36 am
Mike B and GB,
I leave this debate in your capable hands…
As for me, I weary of the duplicity and double standards of these evangelicals. You can’t reason with the unreasonable. To cite “men” as authoritative interpreters (John Gill) of the Bible while at the same time stating the infallibility of the Bible is just too much for me; particularly after all that has been shown in these various threads.
It makes me especially grateful for Joseph Smith…what religious bigotry he must have endured…every young LDS member should participate in this type forum if only to appreciate the significance of what they have, continuing revelation, Prophets and Apostles of God, and His Restored Gospel. Hallelujah!!
Brethren, Adieu…
posted August 30, 2007 at 6:36 am
GB: The only true and accurate biblical exegesis is done by the Holy Ghost. That is how scripture is given. That is the only sure way to understand it.
Do you not believe we should study the Bible?
posted August 30, 2007 at 10:05 am
Luke: Do you not believe we should study the Bible?
GB: Yes.
posted August 30, 2007 at 11:55 am
OK.
GB, let’s talk about prophets. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the 1978 “revelation” that allowed blacks to hold the priesthood. Let’s focus in on this for a moment.
In 1978, the LDS was under pressure from two distinct fronts on the black issue. The first was a case in Wisconsin, where the IRS was threatening to remove that church’s tax exempt status because of racial discrimination. That would have had dire consequences for the LDS church. The second, and what I think is probably the main motivation for the “revelation”, was that the church had announced a new temple in Sao Paulo, Brazil. This temple had already been active, and it was discovered that, due to the mixing of races, it was almost impossible to figure out who had black ancestry and who was eligible for the priesthood.
Then comes the revelation, and everything is fine. Except for a couple of things. One, the revelation itself has never been made public as to its verbiage. One peculiar thing among modern-day LDS prophets is that their wording grows increasingly vague; they are more apt to refer to revelations as “feelings” or “inspirations”, and not record them as “thus saith the Lord.” One thing about Joseph Smith that I can say is that he was not shy about quoting God verbatim, and those words are recorded in Doctrines and Covenants. This 1978 revelation, which changed about 130 years of church policy, was never officially released word for word. It has been noted only that it was received. It is not recorded in the D&C verbatim, but the announcement that a revelation was received is recorded as Official Declaration 2. I find that peculiar.
Two, the revelation does not explain or repudiate the past, and the scriptures that deal with the curse of Ham and Cain, in Nephi and the Book of Abraham, are still there. The idea is this; God could change His mind again, and there would be scriptural evidence to back it up. The Official Declaration 2 did not deal at all with the “curse of Cain”, and it is an issue that continues to dog the church.
Here is the thing that concerns me the most: Apostle Bruce McConkie, in explaining the change in church policy, said this, “There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things…. All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past.”
McConkie says that previous Mormon “apostles and living prophets”, including himself, spoke with a limited understanding? How can that be, if the First Presidency and the Quorum speak for God? Did they misunderstand what God was trying to say for 130 years? Is he saying that all of the Mormon holy men of the past were in darkness? For a church that purports to be led by a living prophet, that seems a really odd statement to make.
The thing that concerns me the most is that, at the words of one man, an entire tradition of church policy can be changed, a tradition and doctrine supposedly continuously revealed by revelation to living prophets. I am certainly not arguing that giving blacks the same access as all other races within the LDS was wrong; quite the contrary. And Joseph Smith himself baptized and conferred several black men himself, so the policy did not originate with him. But that is why the idea of a group of men saying they constantly are getting new commands and guidance from the Lord is so dangerous. In my mind, the 1978 revelation came not from the mind of God, but from the minds of men who realized that if they wanted their church to be able to expand beyond the borders of North America and Europe, they would have to deal with the race issue first.
GB, one last thing: No one has ever answered a question I have asked 3 times; can a woman be a prophet in the LDS?
Also, to expound upon my theme, let’s look at another issue: what is the LDS’s position regarding homosexuality and civil unions?
We’ll go from there. I look forward to your responses.
posted August 30, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Can a woman be a prophet in the LDS religion?
No.
Hope that answers it for you.
posted August 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm
GB,
Also, per your request, here is just a sampling of the Bible passages that deal with ONE God:
Deut 32:39 “See now that I myself am He! There is NO god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.
Deut 6: 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
2 Samuel 7:22″How great you are, O Sovereign LORD! There is no one like you, and there is NO God but you, as we have heard with our own ears.
Psalm 71:22 I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy ONE of Israel.
Psalm 113: 5 Who is like the LORD our God, the ONE who sits enthroned on high, 6 who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth?
Isaiah 43:3 3 For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy ONE of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush [a] and Seba in your stead.
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me NO god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides ME (not US – my emphasis)? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Hosea 11:9 I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man (God is not a man? How enlightening!)— the Holy ONE among you. I will not come in wrath.
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all ONE Father ? Did not ONE God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
Mark 12: 29″The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g]There is no commandment greater than these.”
John 1: 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the ONE and Only,[a][b]who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
Romans 3: 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
I Cor 8: 4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but ONE. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but ONE God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Galatians 3: 19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is ONE.
Ephesians 4: 1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5ONE Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6ONE God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
I Tim 2: 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is ONE God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.
James 2:19 You believe that there is ONE God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
posted August 30, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Bryan Stiles answers the question:
“Can a woman be a prophet in the LDS religion?”
“No.”
But that is not true exactly. Every person can have the gift of prophecy, but the office of president, apostle, elder, etc., are positions held by men.
As to Chief’s issue with “one God”, Mormons do believe in one God as defined in the NT and Book of Mormon as being the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three separate beings comprising one God. The New Testiment calls this the “Godhead”. Later Christians altered the meaning a bit and combined these three beings into one substance and renamed it the “Trinity”. Godhead is Biblical. Trinity is not.
posted August 30, 2007 at 1:47 pm
B,
Thank you for your comments. I agree that the word “Trinity” never appears in the Bible. It is implied, as per the verses I posted above, but we have debated it already and I am not going to belabor the point.
posted August 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Chief,
I am unimpressed. You quote 18 scriptures and only one of them has “GOD IS ONE” in it.
And I find this interesting,John 1: 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the ONE and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
That one (as many others do) separate the Father from the Son.
I am still waiting for you to show me a scripture that clearly and plainly says that the Holy Ghost is God?
posted August 30, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Chief Said:
let’s talk about prophets.
Mike Bennion:
Let’s.
Go to the following links and you will find much of what scripture says about prophets then we can have a better informed talk.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/p/236
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/p/233
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/p/233
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/s/87
If you really want to understand the concept of Prophets and prophecy these links will help.
Also this topical guide from which I am linking is the most complete resourse for understanding LDS Doctrine.
Mike
posted August 30, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Chief,
If you want to talk about Prophets and prophecy I suggest that you go to the Scripture library section at http://www.lds.org The entire standard works of the church are online there. There is also a topical guide and a Bible dictionary there. If you go to the Topical guide and Bible Dictionary and click on the following topics:
Prophecy
Prophets
Seer
Prophets, rejection of
You will find a great deal of information that will better equip you to have an informed convesation with us on the topic of Prophets.
Mike
posted August 30, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Chief:
In 1978, the LDS was under pressure from two distinct fronts on the black issue. The first was a case in Wisconsin, where the IRS was threatening to remove that church’s tax exempt status because of racial discrimination. That would have had dire consequences for the LDS church. The second, and what I think is probably the main motivation for the “revelation”, was that the church had announced a new temple in Sao Paulo, Brazil. This temple had already been active, and it was discovered that, due to the mixing of races, it was almost impossible to figure out who had black ancestry and who was eligible for the priesthood.
Mike Bennion:
In the early days of the Church after the ascension of Christ things were changing rapidly. The Church was under obligation to “Go…and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever (Christ had) commanded…” Yet the Gospel was restricted to the Jews and Israel, and had been for some time. The Gentiles were conseidered unclean. Many Jews believed that they were defiled by contact with Gentiles. How was the gospel to go to “all the world”
under these restrictive circumstances?
Chief:
Then comes the revelation,
Mike Bennion:
Then Gentiles began to have visions and revelation:
Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much aalms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
3 He saw in a avision bevidently about the ninth hour of the day an cangel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
The angel told Cornelius who to send servants to:
Acts 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
Cornelius was obedient to the instructions of the Angel:
Acts 10:7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;
8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.
So we see that external forces outside the leadership of the Church are going to require action by the leaders of the church. These leaders have not yet caught the vision of what God intends them to do.
Even though God has now sent messengers from the Gentiles requesting Peter’s help, Peter, under his current understanding will refuse their request unless something intervenes. Is Peter wrong? Is he evil?
No, he is just following previous instructions mandated by his culture and the previous commands of Jesus.
But now God will change everything. New revelation is about to be recieved by the Chief Apostle of the Church:
Acts 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the ahousetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a atrance,
11 And saw aheaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet bknit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or aunclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath acleansed, that call not thou bcommon.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Notice that Peter must be told three times. The past construct is so engrained in his being that it takes three times to get his attention. and even now he is not sure what it all means.
But that will change:
Acts 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
Note that now the Lord gives Peter the information that the men that seek him are sent by God himself:
Acts 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the aSpirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and ago with them, doubting nothing: for I HAVE SENT THEM.
Now the chief apostle, Peter, is going to go down and gather further information, consult on it and act on it:
Acts 10:21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was awarned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
23 Then called he them in, and lodged them…
Now based on the knowledge Peter has gained he will act:
Acts 10:23 …And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea…
Cornelius, who is a good man, who’s goodness has come to the attention of the God of heaven, and has been rewarded by revelation from that same God, is eagerly waiting for Peter’s arrival. He has also acted, gathering his friends and neighbors:
Acts 10:24 …And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
Now we see the way a prophet acts:
Acts 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a aman.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
A prophet is not worshipped, rather he points toward the true object of worship; God. Now Peter is going to explain his own pre-concieved biases and show how revelation can change them, (and remember this is an ordained Apostle of God):
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that IT IS AN UNLAWFUL THING thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; BUT GOD HATH SHEWED ME that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29 THEREFORE CAME I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
Peter was not prejudiced. He was following previous instructions, but he explains that now the instructions are changed and hw ia obedient to the change. Does this negate the fact that for many years Jews and Gentiles were not to mingle, and Gentiles were not to recieve the covenant? No. There is no negation of previous commands. there is now the issue of a new commandment by revelation. God knows the optimum timing of all things. when the time comes for change, the God of heaven orders it and he makes the change by revelation to a prophet, as is the pattern in Acts. For now Cornelius explains what the Lord has done for him to Peter:
Acts 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was afasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a bman stood before me in bright clothing,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
And now, Peter, by revelation, teaches the new order of things:
Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are awitnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The 1978 revelation on the Priesthood follows this pattern in every particular.
1. Revelation and commandments to take the Gospel to all.
2. Certain previous restrictions in place are problematic.
3. External circumstances require a re-assesmetn of the previous restrictions.
4. Revelation is recieved by a prophet who, though admitting that things were not previously so, now bears witness that God has given new instructions and what was previously proscribed is now permitted.
Chief:
the revelation itself has never been made public as to its verbiage. One peculiar thing among modern-day LDS prophets is that their wording grows increasingly vague; they are more apt to refer to revelations as “feelings” or “inspirations”, and not record them as “thus saith the Lord.” One thing about Joseph Smith that I can say is that he was not shy about quoting God verbatim, and those words are recorded in Doctrines and Covenants. This 1978 revelation, which changed about 130 years of church policy, was never officially released word for word. It has been noted only that it was received. It is not recorded in the D&C verbatim, but the announcement that a revelation was received is recorded as Official Declaration 2. I find that peculiar.
Mike Bennion:
Chief, you are finding things to pick at here. the major issue is covered above. There is no scripture in th eBible or the rest of the Standard works that claims that a revelation must exclusively be recieved with “Thus saith the Lord” as the opening phrase to be bona fide revelation, or that all the specific words must be published. The Officail Declartion 2 is the announcing of the revelation, and the Church voted to accept it as Canon. You are just setting up straw men here.
Chief:
Two, the revelation does not explain or repudiate the past, and the scriptures that deal with the curse of Ham and Cain, in Nephi and the Book of Abraham, are still there. The idea is this; God could change His mind again, and there would be scriptural evidence to back it up. The Official Declaration 2 did not deal at all with the “curse of Cain”, and it is an issue that continues to dog the church.
Mike Bennion:
Nor was there a repudiation of the fact that Gentiles could not previously partake of the covenant, in Peter’s day. God had given the previous commandments upon which the restrictions was based. god does not have to excuse himself. He has a purpose for the commandments he gives and the timing of those commandments. God never repudiated giving a commandment to Noah, even though he does not require the same action from us as he did from Noah. Jesus did not repudiate the law of Moses. He fulfilled it. This “dogs the church” only in the minds of folks like you. Anyone who understands the Bible pattern is not troubled. I am certainly not.
Chief:
Here is the thing that concerns me the most: Apostle Bruce McConkie, in explaining the change in church policy, said this, “There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things…. All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past.”
McConkie says that previous Mormon “apostles and living prophets”, including himself, spoke with a limited understanding? How can that be, if the First Presidency and the Quorum speak for God? Did they misunderstand what God was trying to say for 130 years? Is he saying that all of the Mormon holy men of the past were in darkness? For a church that purports to be led by a living prophet, that seems a really odd statement to make.
The thing that concerns me the most is that, at the words of one man, an entire tradition of church policy can be changed, a tradition and doctrine supposedly continuously revealed by revelation to living prophets. I am certainly not arguing that giving blacks the same access as all other races within the LDS was wrong; quite the contrary. And Joseph Smith himself baptized and conferred several black men himself, so the policy did not originate with him. But that is why the idea of a group of men saying they constantly are getting new commands and guidance from the Lord is so dangerous. In my mind, the 1978 revelation came not from the mind of God, but from the minds of men who realized that if they wanted their church to be able to expand beyond the borders of North America and Europe, they would have to deal with the race issue first.
Mike Bennion:
And yet this is exactly what happened in the early days of the church when the Gospel went to the Gentiles and a prophet of God, Peter, recieved a revelation authorizing that change and the church accepted it. Chief, you are going on the assumption that somehow we consider the Apostles and the Prophet to be infallable. This certainly wasn’t so with Peter, who said as much numerous times in the Bible. Nevertheless when God was ready to make changes, Peter was ready to implement them without further ado or discussion. You tried to make the same argument about the Book of Mormon and the changes there as you are making here. There is no claim of perfection in that Book or in the Bible or among th eservants of God, nor is there anyplace where it is claimed that the Word of God or his revelations are complete.
Whether we are discussing the 1978 revelations or Scripture, or plural marriage or any other topic, there is one constant:
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
The pattern is the same. There is no conflict. God is in th etiming and in the details.
I bear you my witness, gained by long pondering, prayer and consideration, and by revelation to my mind and my heart from God, that the same God who commanded Peter to extend the gospel to the Gentiles, gave the revelation in 1978 that extended the priesthood to all worthy males, regarless of race or ethnicity. Spencer W. Kimball, no less than Peter, imperfect mortals though they both were, was a prophet of God, and Jesus Christ, who I worship with all my might, mind and strength is the head of the Church today, as he was then.
posted August 30, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Mike
There is no Salvation outside Israel
Did the Old Testament teach that Gentiles could be true Jews?
Yes it did. Here’s why:
If you are a Christian, you are a Jew. If you are not a Christian you are not a Jew. There is no salvation outside Israel. These are bold claims but that is what the apostle Paul teaches in Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians.
For example, he says in Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Then he says that the way Gentiles find God is by becoming fellow citizens in the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-19) And by being grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17-25). Another way to put it is “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). The reason for this is that Christ Himself is the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), so that being in Christ means being Abraham’s seed and therefore’ heirs of the promise (Galtians 3:29,16).
Now the question is did Paul reinterpret the Old Testament? Or is that kind of teaching really there? Did the Old Testament itself teach that a Gentile could be a true Jew, and that one who is a Jew by birth might not be a true Jew? For Paul, the validity of our salvation hangs on the validity of our attachment to Israel. Therefore a lot is at stake if Paul misinterpreted the Old Testament. Here is why I think He didn’t.
In Genesis 17:25, Ishmael, Abraham’s son, was circumcised, and Abraham pleaded with God that Ishmael might be his heir: “‘Oh that Ishmael might live before You!’ But God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him’” (Genesis 17:18-19). This shows that mere descendancy from Abraham is no guarantee of being an heir of the promise (a “true Jew”). Similarly Rebekah gave birth to twins by Isaac, but only one of them, Jacob, not Esau, was the heir of the promise (Genesis 25:23; Romans 9:10-13). Thus “it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God (“true Jews”), but the children of promise are reckoned as seed” (Romans 9:8).
In Leviticus 26:41-42, many Jews are pictured as “uncircumcised in heart.” “If their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob.” Thus, even though they are physical Jews, they will not inherit the covenant if they do not change inside, similar to what Paul says in Romans 2:29.
In Deuteronomy 10:16-17, Moses commands the people, “Circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer. For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords . . . who does not show partiality. . . .” This means that heart-circumcision, not physical, external Jewishness is essential with God. Similarly, Jeremiah 4:4 says, “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskins of your heart, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or else My wrath will go forth like fire and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.” Without inward love to God and trust in God, the same wrath comes on Jews as on Gentiles. Thus, as Paul said in Romans 2:25, without heart-circumcision “your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”
Jeremiah 9:25-26 says, “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised – Egypt and Judah, and Edom and the sons of Ammon, and Moab and all those inhabiting the desert who clip the hair on their temples; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.” These nations clip hair instead of foreskin. Thus they have a form of “circumcision.” Jeremiah, amazingly, puts Israel in the same category as these nations under the wrath of God because the mark of their Jewishness is no more valuable than the clipping of pagan hair, if they are “uncircumcised in heart.” Again, as Paul said, “your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”
Perhaps this is enough to show that, in Romans 2:25-29, Paul is not reinterpreting the Old Testament. He is drawing out a lesson about true Jewishness that was taught by the law and the prophets. True Jews are not those with external marks of Jewishness, but those with circumcised hearts which love the God of Abraham (Deuteronomy 30:6). Therefore Gentiles with faith in Christ, the seed of Abraham, are the children of Abraham, heirs of the promise (Galatians 3:7,29).
Therefore we see that God revealed to Peter was not a new revelation but was a revelation from of old that had always been there.
posted August 30, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Luke,
You are arguing a position that goes right past LDS Doctrine.
The eternal principle is that God will adopt and save all who believe in him. Those who are outside the House of Israel are adopted in when they accept Christ. This is Mormon doctrine and as you have shown it is supported by Bible scripture.
The practice, in Peter’s day, however, was that Gentiles could not receive the Gospel. The revelation changed that. But the principle that revelation is given to prophets to steer the church remains a constant and was demonstrated by Peter’s experience in Acts 10. This is the same pattern for the 1978 revelation that we discussed above.
Indeed, this gets to the heart of the matter. Those who turn their hearts to God and keep his commandments become Israel. “Doers of the word and not hearers only”.
posted August 30, 2007 at 11:41 pm
GB,
My intent was not to impress you, but show that there are indeed a multitude of Scriptures that capture the oneness of God. My intent is not to convince you or win you over, either, just to show what is out there. What you see in the Scriptures is what the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, decides to reveal to your heart. If you see three different, separate gods there, then that’s what you see. We’ll eventually find out in the end.
If the Holy Spirit is not God, could the gospel writer say this?
Matt 1: 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
Remember, the Jews knew that only God could save people from sin. So for Jesus to be able to do that, His parentage had to be God. If what Mary carried was conceived from the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit has to be God.
Or how about this?
Matt 12:32 – “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
If the Holy Spirit is not God, why would people not be forgiven for speaking against Him?
Or this:
Acts 1: 15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”
If all Scripture is “God-breathed”, then that which spoke through the mouth of David had to be God.
Or this:
Ephesians 4: 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Or this:
Hebrews 3:7So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you hear his voice,
8do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, 9where your fathers tested and tried me
and for forty years saw what I did.
Or this:
Hebrews 9: 15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16″This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
In this verse, it certainly seems as if the Holy Spirit is spoken of as if He is God.
Or finally, this:
Romans 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
Now, if you are looking for a specific verse that says, “Hello, my name is the Holy Ghost and I’m God, too!”, there isn’t one. Again, you get out of the verses above what the Lord reveals to your heart. In my mind, is the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead? Absolutely. You can think what you want, and I won’t say that you are right or wrong (because you keep accusing me of saying that anyone who doesn’t believe like I believe is wrong), because in the end what I think about your beliefs doesn’t matter at all. It’s what God thinks of your beliefs that matters.
posted August 31, 2007 at 12:06 am
Mike,
I agree with some of what you say, but I think you are missing a vital point here. God never said the Gentiles would never receive salvation. In Isaiah 42: 6-7 [6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.] and 49:6 [he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."], as well as Isaiah 49:22 [This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their shoulders.], God reveals that His plan was to include the Gentiles all the time. The reason that He had to implement the plan gradually was that the apostles, being Jewish, hated the Gentiles and excluded them from consideration. God had to reveal to Peter and to Paul that Christ’s redemption was for everybody. Jesus already knew this; he spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, and healed the centurion’s servant and marveled at his faith. And when the prophet Simeon held the baby Jesus in his arms, he said this in Luke 2:30-32 – “For my eyes have seen your salvation, 31which you have prepared in the sight of all people, 32a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.”
The apostles were instructed to go to the lost sheep of Israel first, as they were God’s chosen people, and God would have preferred that they would then be a shining example of the gospel to the world. But when the Jews rejected the gospel, the gospel was then preached to the Gentiles, partly to make the Jews jealous, and partly to fulfill the will of the Lord that He desires all men to be saved.
The difference between this and the 1978 revelation is that preaching to the Gentiles was not prohibited by scripture. By telling Peter that the Gentiles were to be including in the preaching of the gospel, God was not contradicting Scripture. It was against the cultural tradition of the Jews, as Gentiles were considered heathens and unclean, but it was not against God’s formerly given laws to proselytize them. In contrast, blacks being not eligible for the priesthood violated Mormon scriptures in 2 Nephi and in chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham. Numerous living prophets and First Presidencies issued proclamations upholding the ban, creating a layer of 130 years of church teaching. People such as Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Orson Pratt, Bruce McConkie, and Spencer Kimball all chimed in on the side of the ban. So the 1978 revelation went against what generations of Mormons believed was the gospel truth!
I will finish up with this question: Do you believe that a Mormon prophet could lead the church astray?
I bid you good night!
posted August 31, 2007 at 1:37 am
Look at how the term “sheep” is used in the NT. It does not ever mean Gentiles. the “other sheep” were other Israelites. Do a scripture search on the word “sheep” and check for yourself
posted August 31, 2007 at 2:17 am
Chief:
preaching to the Gentiles was not prohibited by scripture.
Mike Bennion:
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and COMMANDED THEM, saying, GO NOT INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But GO RATHER to the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL.
That sure sounds suspiciously like a commandment to me.
Chief:
I think you are missing a vital point here. God never said the Gentiles would never receive salvation.
Mike Bennion:
I think that you are missing a vital point. LDS doctrine agrees that the Gentiles and all people who follow Christ recieve salvation.
We accept all the scriptures that you have quoted. I have used them to make the same points to others.
Chief:
The reason that He (Jesus) had to implement the plan gradually was that the apostles, being Jewish, hated the Gentiles and excluded them from consideration.
Mike Bennion:
Lets repeat Matthew 10:
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and COMMANDED THEM, saying, GO NOT INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But GO RATHER to the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL.
It wasn’t the Apostles who told Jesus that they wouldn’t take the gospel to the Gentiles. Matthew 10 is very specific. It was the command of Jesus himself not to do it. The time was not right.
The time was right in Acts Chapter 10. Then all the right circumstances lined up so that the work could be extended to the Gentiles.
Chief:
But when the Jews rejected the gospel, the gospel was then preached to the Gentiles,
Mike Bennion:
Precisely. The majority of the Jews rejected Christ in his day. God, foreknew this would happen. God always arranges the plan to save the maximum number of people who will be saved. We agree here Chief. And when God extended the gospel to the Gentiles, as the scriptures had prophesied he would, He told a Prophet, the chief apostle, Peter.
Chief:
The difference between this and the 1978 revelation is that preaching to the Gentiles was not prohibited by scripture.
Mike Bennion:
Matthew 10 says that is not so.
Chief:
By telling Peter that the Gentiles were to be including in the preaching of the gospel, God was not contradicting Scripture.
Mike Bennion:
True. But not for the reason you suggest. You are confusing principles with practices. The PRINCIPLE is that God will save all who follow him in faith and keep his commandments (doers of the word). The PRACTICE is adjusted by God based on th especific needs and circumstances of the people at that time.
Salvation and the ordinances pertaining to it are PRINCIPLES.
The specific groups of people who are extended the gospel, the way it is extended and taught, and some of the commandments, such as the number of wives, or the requirements for exercising priesthood authority are PRACTICES.
The Bible plainly shows, for example, that there was a time when plural wives were acceptable to the Lord. Abraham, Jacob and David are among those who followed this practice, and God allowed it. God made covenants with Abraham and Jacob while they were married to more than one wife. The Gentiles were, for a time, kept from the gospel, as were the blacks. This had little to do with the Prophets who recieved revelation from God during those times. The Prophets were often doubting and even relutant to obey. The LDS Church in early days preached “gsthering to Zion” meaning to America. Thousands of members from Europe came to build up the Church. Yoday the Church teaches members to stay in thier own lands and build up the Church there. The principle of building up the Church have not changed. The practices have.
Chief:
In contrast, blacks being not eligible for the priesthood violated Mormon scriptures in 2 Nephi and in chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham.
So the 1978 revelation went against what generations of Mormons believed was the gospel truth!
Mike Bennion:
As a Mormon who lived through both times I can tell you that we were never taught the the Blacks would not eventually be saved in the kingdom of God. As you point out, the PRINCIPLE that God will save all those who follow him is in both the Bible and in the other LDS Standard Works. The PRACTICE was given by God in the Bible for the Gentiles, and in the other Standard works and the teachings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, for the Blacks. In both cases when the time was optimal, God gave revelation to Prophets that amended the PRACTICE.
Chief:
I will finish up with this question: Do you believe that a Mormon prophet could lead the church astray?
Mike Bennion:
I will finish with this question. Could Peter and the other Apostles have led the Church in their day astray?
If you answer yes, then how can you trust the Bible?
If you answer no, then I can use the same reasoning for Modern Prophets and Apostles.
posted August 31, 2007 at 10:58 am
Mike,
Ah, you are trying to be duplicitous, my friend! I was alluding to the fact that it is an article of faith, already expressed on this thread, that you believe that your prophets CANNOT lead the church astray. Is this not true? I have a reason for asking this question.
It is certainly possible for any one, no matter how great or how small, to fall into temptation and lead people astray. Throughout Israelite history there were many kings, and some prophets, who succumbed to their human natures. But God never abandons His people, and He ALWAYS provides some faithful shepherds who preach His word no matter what obstacles they face. So Peter and the others could have, certainly, but they didn’t. How do I know this? Because their teachings are in perfect harmony with the faithful words of Christ, which are in perfect harmony with the law and the prophets of old. The message has been the same from time immemorial, and it has stood the tests of time and persecution.
I heard a preacher last month put it this way – “The greatest commitment to the Great Commandments (Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself) and the Great Commission (Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and teaching them all I have commanded you) will make you the greatest Christian you can be.
I addressed Matthew 10 in my earlier post. The apostles were instructed to take the gospel to the lost sheep of Israel first, there is no doubt. And that is entirely consistent with all of the Old Testament. Why did the Lord give the Jews the Ten Commandments? Because if they truly practiced them, in intent as well as execution, they would reflect the character of the Lord in their attitudes and their behavior. This would attract the attention of the heathens living around them, and the Israelites would be a shining example to them and would be the instrument through which God declared His glory to the whole world. There was a very definite reason God gave the land of Palestine to the Jews; the main north-south trade route and the main trade route from west to east ran through it. The Jewish nation sat right at the crossroads of the known world, and news of their faith could be dispersed into all of the world. Unfortunately, the Jews did not live up to their end of the covenant (and we couldn’t have, either). But salvation was always first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, but in God’s mind it was always understood that the Gentiles would be part of the plan.
————————
As I have read it, Spencer Kimball stated that he was ready to die to protect the ban on blacks getting the priesthood. The important thing to note is that this ban also meant blacks could not participate in any of the temple ceremonies, either. And Mike, this was both the POLICY and the PRACTICE of the LDS ever since Brigham Young assumed the leadership until 1978. There were 2 Mormon bishops who were ex-communicated in the late 60′s-early 70′s, one for protesting the policy too strenuously, and one for conferring the priesthood very publicly on a black man, Larry Lester. So please don’t tell me it wasn’t the policy or practice, because it plainly was. And even though we now can say that the PRACTICE has changed, and blacks can now enter the priesthood and enjoy the temple rites, the DOCTRINE is still there in the LDS scriptures and declarations of past prophets and apostles. So a new revelation could very well change the POLICY and PRACTICES, because the doctrine has never been changed or repudiated. It is the same for polygny – the LDS has changed its PRACTICE of it, but the DOCTRINE of it still stands, so that a new revelation could well institute it again. And here in the 21st century, there has been discussion in the Mormon leadership (you can check out the articles at the Salt Lake Tribune) over the fact that these doctrines still are in place, and could be reinstituted, especially polygamy.
posted August 31, 2007 at 11:07 am
Chief: My intent was not to impress you, but show that there are indeed a multitude of Scriptures that capture the oneness of God.
GB: Ah yes, but you claimed more than 50, and yet only produced 18. But none of the scriptures you quote show that the unity of purpose and NOT unity of substance is inaccurate.
UNLIKE you I don’t have a lot of time to write posts in response to you. So this will be the first installment in a series.
aDeut 32:39 . . . There is NO god besides me. . . . >> Doesn’t preclude multiple persons united in purpose in one God.
Deut 6: 4 . . . The LORD our God, the LORD is one. >>Jehovah (Jesus Christ) is the only one speaking.
a2 Samuel 7:22 . . . and there is NO God but you, . . . . >>Doesn’t preclude multiple persons united in purpose in one God.
Psalm 71:22 . . . O Holy ONE of Israel. >>Jehovah (Jesus Christ) is the Holy One of Israel.
Psalm 113: 5 Who is like the LORD our God, the ONE who sits enthroned on high, . . . >>Jehovah (Jesus Christ) is enthroned on high on the right hand of the Father.
Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy ONE of Israel, your Savior; . . . >>Jehovah (Jesus Christ) is the ONE speaking and He is the Holy One of Israel and our Savior.
aIsaiah 43:10 . . . Before me NO God was formed, nor will there be one after me. >>That merely indicates that for all on this earth we are to worship the one true God. God is a state of being that has always existed. If a person achieves perfection of all godly attributes (through Christ) he will be united with the One True God (as described in John 17). No new state is created.
aIsaiah 44:8 . . . Is there any God besides ME ? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” >>Jehovah (Jesus Christ) represents the Father. He is the Rock, besides Him we have no access to the Father.
Hosea 11:9 . . . For I am God, and not man — the Holy ONE among you. . . .>> Jehovah (Jesus Christ) is the one speaking. He is the Holy One (and was not yet a man).
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all ONE Father ? Did not ONE God create us? . . . >> Notice that the ONE Father that we all have is separated from the ONE God that created us. So God the Father can be separated as an individual from the collective that is the ONE God.
Mark 12: 29. . . ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE. .>> Jehovah (Jesus Christ the Lord) is the ONE speaking and He is One.
bJohn 1: 18. . . but God the ONE and Only, who is at the Father’s side, . . . >> This verse separates the Father from the Son. So contrary to supporting you argument it undermines it.
aRomans 3: 30 . . . .since there is only one God, >> See above.
bI Cor 8: 4 . . . there is no God but ONE. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 YET FOR US there is but ONE God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. >>This verse acknowledges multiple gods and lords in HEAVEN. AND it separates the Father from the Son. So contrary to supporting you argument it undermines it.
Galatians 3: 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is ONE. >> the mediator (Jesus Christ) represents the ONE collective that is God.
bEphesians 4: 5ONE Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6ONE God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. >> This verse separates the Father from the Son. So contrary to supporting you argument it undermines it.
bI Tim 2: 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is ONE God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, >> This verse separates the Father from the Son. So contrary to supporting you argument it undermines it.
aJames 2:19 You believe that there is ONE God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. >>Doesn’t preclude multiple persons united in purpose in one God.
So of the 18 you provided I count 6 (marked with an “a”) that could be used to support you position (although none of them preclude the ONE God being a collective of more than one God). And I count 4 that undermine your position.
So the current score (after the top if the first inning so to speak) is Chief:6 and GB:4 And I am up to bat.
Gen. 1: 26 God said, Let us make man in our image.
Gen. 3: 22 man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.
Matt. 3: 17 This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matt. 20: 23 not mine to give, but . . . of my Father.
Matt. 26: 39 not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Matt. 28: 19 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1: 32 called the Son of the Highest. >> as opposed to one of the lesser gods.
Luke 3: 22 Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove.
John 5: 19 Son can do nothing . . . but what he seeth the Father do.
John 8: 18 Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
John 10: 30 I and my Father are one. >> Notice that they are separate yet united in purpose.
John 10: 38 believe the works . . . that the Father is in me.
John 12: 28 a voice from heaven, saying, I have . . . glorified it.
John 14: 28 my Father is greater than I.
John 17: 3 that they might know thee the only true God. and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent
John 17: 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me.
John 20: 17 I ascend unto my Father, and your Father.
Acts 2: 33 being by the right hand of God exalted.
Acts 7: 55 saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.
Acts 17: 29 not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold.
Rom. 1: 20 even his eternal power and Godhead.
2 Cor. 4: 4 Christ, who is the image of God.
Eph. 3: 14 I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord.
Heb. 1: 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.
1 Jn. 5: 7 THREE that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.
So Chief what is the score now? I will get to our Holy Ghost discussion later.
posted August 31, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Mike,
Here is why I am so bothered by the 1978 revelation, in addition to the comments that McConkie made. This is an excerpt from an interview with another LDS apostle, LeGrande Richards. (I got this off of lds-mormon.com, so it definitely does not come from an anti-Mormon site).
Interview with Apostle LeGrand Richards
By Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos
16th August 1978
Church Office Building
(Recorded on Cassette)
WALTERS: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I’ve heard all kinds of stories: I’ve heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had, had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?
RICHARDS: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it’s hard to get leaders that don’t have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It’s going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don’t change, then they can’t even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it.
He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray – and we did – that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office – individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can’t always express everything that’s in your heart. You’re part of the group, you see – so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood.
Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday – we meet every Thursday – the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement – to see how we’d feel about it – and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it – the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.
————————-
Now, here is what bothers me. In this interview, Richards says that Kimball was “thinking favorably about giving colored people the priesthood”, and it was the crisis down in Brazil that was precipitating this. “It’s hard to get leaders that don’t have Negro blood in them.” Then the Quorum meets, and the next Thursday he has an announcement ready, and they pass it around to see if they want to make changes to it. And then they all voted on it.
If this was truly a revelation from God, why would any changes need to be made to it? Why would it need to be voted on? Why would Peterson need to be contacted to see if he agreed with it? If God says it, isn’t that the end of the matter? He has never really been concerned about whether people like His wording or not. “This is My will; so let it be done.”
That is why this 1978 “revelation” smacks more of a business decision to me rather than a supernatural intervention. They considered the pros and cons of the idea, measured its financial impact, then agreed on an announcement to put the policy in place. A perfect example of an impact committee coming together to look at a problem and make a recommendation. Not a perfect example of, “Thus saith the Lord.” The fact that the exact wording of the revelation has never been made known also casts doubt on it, in my mind. Why would you hide the word of God? When making such a drastic change, wouldn’t the faithful want to know exactly what God said to justify bringing about such a change?
Those are the questions on my mind today…
posted August 31, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Chief:
Here is why I am so bothered by the 1978 revelation, in addition to the comments that McConkie made. This is an excerpt from an interview with another LDS apostle, LeGrande Richards. (I got this off of lds-mormon.com, so it definitely does not come from an anti-Mormon site).
Mike Bennion:
Quote from introduction to lll-mormon.com:
An interesting thing about the LDS faith (which is the religion I grew up with–even going so far as to serve a two year Mormon mission and receive a couple of degrees from BYU) is that applying some of the church’s own teachings ultimately LED ME TO DISBELIEVE in some of its principal doctrines. The church encourages honesty. Some church leaders even define the underlying core doctrine of the church to be all truths from whatever source derived. Brigham Young (the second prophet of Utah Mormonism) said, “If the infidel has got truth it belongs to Mormonism”. Now I search for truth from whatever sources I can. I’ve never been happier or felt more alive than I do now AS AN INFIDEL seeking after truth rather than (BLINDLY) following tradition or authority figures.
This source, despite it’s protestations, is anti-Mormon, as evidenced by the quote above. I now quote you Chief: “Ah, you are trying to be duplicitous, my friend!”
posted August 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Chief: In 1978, the LDS was under pressure from two distinct fronts on the black issue. The first was a case in Wisconsin, where the IRS was threatening to remove that church’s tax exempt status because of racial discrimination.
This is the second time you have brought up this IRS canard. Last time you couldn’t provide any documentation to back up this assertion. So why are you bringing it up again?
Are you trying to be duplicitous?
posted August 31, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Mike,
This person still believes in and practices a form of Mormonism! You did not print, for perusal here, the opening statements. Just because a person does not embrace ALL tenets of the LDS does not make them an “anti-Mormon.” I believe that you use that term a little too loosely. Just because you don’t believe everything that I believe, I don’t label you an “anti-Evangelical Christian.”
Regardless of what the source is, it has nothing to do with the contents of the interview I posted. Are you objecting to the accuracy of the interview I cited?
posted August 31, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Chief:
I will finish up with this question: Do you believe that a Mormon prophet could lead the church astray?
Mike Bennion:
I will finish with this question. Could Peter and the other Apostles have led the Church in their day astray?
If you answer yes, then how can you trust the Bible?
If you answer no, then I can use the same reasoning for Modern Prophets and Apostles.
Chief:Ah, you are trying to be duplicitous, my friend! I was alluding to the fact that it is an article of faith, already expressed on this thread, that you believe that your prophets CANNOT lead the church astray. Is this not true? I have a reason for asking this question.
Mike Bennion:
You already know that I believe that the Prophet will no lead the Church astray. But I thought it fair to aim th equestion back the other way.
Chief:
But God never abandons His people, and He ALWAYS provides some faithful shepherds who preach His word no matter what obstacles they face. So Peter and the others could have, certainly, but they didn’t. How do I know this? Because their teachings are in perfect harmony with the faithful words of Christ, which are in perfect harmony with the law and the prophets of old. The message has been the same from time immemorial, and it has stood the tests of time and persecution.
Mike:
And that message has always been delivered by God to his people through prophets. And that is in perfect harmony with the faithful words of Christ. And as you say, Peter did not lead the Church astray. And in Acts Chapter ten, being faced with an analgous situation to that of the 1978 revelation, Peter received divine quidance, and then bore witness of that revelation to the Church.
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Spencer W. Kimball recieved divine guidance, and then bore witness of that revelation to the Church:
From Official Declaration 2 Doctrine and Covenants:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
Now, Chief
First you say this:
As I have read it, Spencer Kimball stated that he was ready to die to protect the ban on blacks getting the priesthood.
Then you say:
Now, here is what bothers me. In this interview, Richards says that Kimball was “thinking favorably about giving colored people the priesthood”, and it was the crisis down in Brazil that was precipitating this. “It’s hard to get leaders that don’t have Negro blood in them.” Then the Quorum meets, and the next Thursday he has an announcement ready, and they pass it around to see if they want to make changes to it. And then they all voted on it.
Mike Bennion:
A couple of comments on these quotes of yours.
If President Kimball was that committed to keep the ban in effect, what would have induced him to change?
There was an article in Time Magazine about President Kimball becoming the Prophet, that came out in 1974 when I was on my mission. I have a copy of that article.
In that article the editors made several points:
1. President Kimball was in poor health and not expected to live long.
2. He was expected to a caretaker president and not accomplish much in the way of moving the Church along.
3. He was asked if He might change the policy of the Church concerning the Blacks. He sid the Church was always open to revelation should the Lord decide to change this policy. But the aritcle concluded with these words, “few expect that this change will be made under Kimball”.
Boy were they wrong.
Chief:
If this was truly a revelation from God, why would any changes need to be made to it? Why would it need to be voted on? Why would Peterson need to be contacted to see if he agreed with it? If God says it, isn’t that the end of the matter? He has never really been concerned about whether people like His wording or not. “This is My will; so let it be done.”
Mike Bennion:
Because the Church is a “House of Order” and procedure set in place by revelation by the Lord is to be scrupuously followed:
Doctrine & Covenatnts 107:22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the TWELVE APOSTLES, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, EQUAL IN AUTHORITY AND POWER to the three presidents previously mentioned.
D & C 107:27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the UNANIMOUS voice of the same; that is, EVERY MEMBER IN EACH QUORUM MUST BE AGREED TO ITS DECISIONS, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—
28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—
29 UNLESS THIS IS THE CASE, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.
30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;
31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.
If this procedure had not been followed to the letter, the revelation would be suspect. It is difficult to lead the Church astray when it requires the unanimous vote of 15 men to put revelation forth as valid. And then it must be put to a sustaining vote by a general conference of the Church before that revelation become a canonized portion of the Standard Works, and becomes binding on the Church as a whole.
Now, Chief, in thae context of D&C 107 here is Legrande Richards account:
Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and WE DISCUSSED it as a group together, and then we PRAYED ABOUT IT in our prayer circle, and then we held ANOTHER PRAYER CIRCLE after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; PRAYING THAT THE LORD WOULD GIVE US THE INSPIRATION that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday – we meet every Thursday – the Presidency CAME WITH THIS LITTLE DOCUMENT written out to make the announcement – to see how we’d feel about it – and present it in written form. Well, some of the MEMBERS OF THE TWELVE suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we ALL VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT – the TWELVE AND THE PRESIDENCY. ONE MEMBER of the Twelve, MARK PETERSON, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be REACHED BY PHONE, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and HE (PETERSON) APPROVED IT.
here is your comment on it Chief:
That is why this 1978 “revelation” smacks more of a business decision to me rather than a supernatural intervention.
Mike Bennion:
And this decision was in absolute and complete accord with the revelation received for coming to a decision and receiving revelation as a First Presidency and a Quorum of Twelve.
Chief:
They considered the pros and cons of the idea, measured its financial impact, then agreed on an announcement to put the policy in place. A perfect example of an impact committee coming together to look at a problem and make a recommendation.
Mike Bennion:
It is convenient that you left out the Prayers. This fact, that the Prayers offered to the Lord were for spcific guidance in making this decision make this not just another business meeting.
Chief:
Not a perfect example of, “Thus saith the Lord.”
Mike Bennion:
CAn you show me in Acts 10 where Peter said the words “thus saith the Lord”? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible or the other Standard Works of the LDS Church where it is required that every single revelation be prefaced with the words “thus saith the Lord”?
No you cannot. This is not a requirement for revelation and you are
straining to find some reason to reject the 1978 revelation and this one won’t work.
Chief:
The fact that the exact wording of the revelation has never been made known also casts doubt on it, in my mind. Why would you hide the word of God? When making such a drastic change, wouldn’t the faithful want to know exactly what God said to justify bringing about such a change?
Mike Bennion:
The revelation that President Kimball brought to the metting was the text of Official Declaration 2, and such changes as were made in the meeting by the unanimous vote of the 15 men attending, after fervent and sincer prayer and in accordance with the pattern for recieving revelation previously received in the Bible and in the Doctine and Covenants.
As one of the “faithful” I am completely satisfied with the wording of the Revelation. And what is more, I have a personal witness that the revelation is of God. I prayed to know in the name of Jesus Christ, and God answered my prayer and filled my mind and my heart with a sure conviction of the truth of it. I know for myself, independent of any other person that the 1978 Revelation on the Priesthood is a revelation from God, and that the Church and the world are obligated to act in accordance with it.
posted August 31, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Chief:
This person still believes in and practices a form of Mormonism! You did not print, for perusal here, the opening statements. Just because a person does not embrace ALL tenets of the LDS does not make them an “anti-Mormon.” I believe that you use that term a little too loosely. Just because you don’t believe everything that I believe, I don’t label you an “anti-Evangelical Christian.”
Mike Bennion:
No sir. His stated purpose is to justify his apostasy from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is not a friend to the
Church. and the content of his site betrays that bias. Having perused those statements myself. Others may go there and draw thier own conclusions as I have done. I am not opposing your beliefs, Chief, I am defending my own.
Chief:
Regardless of what the source is, it has nothing to do with the contents of the interview I posted. Are you objecting to the accuracy of the interview I cited?
Mike Bennion:
Since I quoted it back to you in my post where did I give the impression that I questioned it’s accuracy? I am wondering how carefully you read my preceding posts.
posted August 31, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Off to work. Back late tonight.
posted August 31, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Mike,
OK, I can live with that. And I don’t discount the prayers. I am sure that the decision they were wrestling with was extremely stressful and weighed heavily on their minds. But my question is this: how do you know when a revelation is a revelation? Didn’t John Taylor question all of the messiness going on in the late 1880′s concerning polygamy that he said, “Is the Lord a child that He would change His mind?” after reading the 1890 Manifesto? What about the “revelation” that Smith had about men on the moon, something you won’t find in modern LDS literature? Or how about Brigham Young’s “revelation” that Adam was in fact God? All of these men professed to be speaking in the Spirit when they made these proclamations. How do you decide which revelations to believe in and which ones to discard as just their opinions? Many Mormon presidents and apostles stated, before 1978, that the priesthood ban was God’s will, and they believed in it and were comfortable with it. Then they are so relieved when the revelation comes out lifting it. Kind of odd.
In a letter dated Feb 19, 1981 to BYU professor Eugene England, Bruce McConkie made some rather startling statements about Young:
“Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. ***The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.***MY EMPHASIS
———————-
WOW!! This sounds just like what I have been saying about proving what a person preaches against Scripture!!! Remember the Bereans? Luke states that they were more noble than the Thessalonians because “they received the message with great earnestness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11). McConkie is saying that Brigham Young, supposedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit, “expresses views that are out of harmony with the gospel.” How is that possible for a living prophet? If he was “out of harmony” with his Adam-God doctrine, what else was he out of harmony with? Makes you wonder…
———————-
TO CONTINUE…
Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught, emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.
I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.
This puts me in mind of Paul’s statement: “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) ***I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality.***EMPHASIS MINE
—————
Again, WOW!! Did you read what he just said? I DO KNOW THAT HE (GOD) PERMITS FALSE DOCTRINE TO BE TAUGHT IN AND OUT OF THE CHURCH. So a prophet CAN lead people astray, if he teaches false doctrine. And he is accusing Brigham Young of exactly that!!! But Young professed to be speaking the “word of the Lord” when he gave that doctrine (Millenial Star, vol 16, pg 534)? Is he a prophet, or is he a liar? He also taught that Adam was the father of Jesus, that Adam brought that animals and plant seeds to this world from another planet, and that “LDS sisters will become Eves on their own earths.” Were those prophetic sayings, or delusions of someone in need of some mental help?
—————
AGAIN, TO CONTINUE…
We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said: “And all those who preach false doctrines, . . . wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!: (2 Ne. 28:15.) This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.
———————-
Again, WOW!!! McConkie is telling England that anyone who believes Brigham Young’s doctrine about the Adam-God theory will be damned! And yet above, he says that Young is in heaven, even though he taught this false doctrine! Doctrine that Young asserted he received from the Lord through revelation!! Spencer Kimball stated this doctrine was false in 1976 ["We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Conference Report, p. 115 (October 1-3, 1976)] Notice he doesn’t name Young specifically, but you get the gist.
Mike, that is why I can’t believe in the LDS living prophets and apostles, or in their olden-time prophets. They don’t talk the talk or walk the walk according to the standards God has for prophets. There are many more examples of things like this where someone says something, supposedly under the inspiration of the Lord, only for that idea to become an embarrassment and to be covered up. The word of a prophet has to stand the test of time. I also vigorously disagree with Joseph Smith’s statement that “a prophet is only a prophet when he’s acting in the role of a prophet” – throughout Scripture the prophets were to be men of godly character and repute. You can’t take the good with the bad; the person is either a prophet 100% of the time, or he’s no prophet at all. Look at the OT prophets; men knew them because of their reputations. People looked to them to be paragons of character and virtue. New Testament prophets like John the Baptist – “he will be great in the sight of the Lord” – continued that track record. Did they have their human failings? Sure they did! But in terms of when they were communicating with people, those guys and girls were all spot on. There was no, “Well, we now know these particular teachings of Elijah to be false, but boy he teaches the truth in these other areas!” You either spoke the truth, or you were not a prophet of God. Period.
posted September 1, 2007 at 4:31 am
Chief:
OK, I can live with that. And I don’t discount the prayers. I am sure that the decision they were wrestling with was extremely stressful and weighed heavily on their minds.
Mike Bennion:
It was and it did. Chief, please understand that My knowledge that this is true is not based alone on what others have said, but on what I know as a result of my own pondering, reading and prayers. I don’t apologize for the knowledge I have gained. I am unabashedly and unapologetically a member of the Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter-day Saints. I know these men of which we have been speaking are prophets, seers and revelators. I have payed the price to know and I do.
Chief:
But my question is this: how do you know when a revelation is a revelation?
Mike Bennion:
1. When It is received by a prophet of God.
2. When it is unanimously approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
3. When it is sustained by a vote of the general membership of the Church in Copnference.
4. When it is contained in the Standard Works.
5. When it accords with the Standard Works.
6. I can know for myself by reading it, studying it, pondering it,
and praying about it. This knowledge comes from the Holy Ghost and leaves no room for doubt.
Chief:
Didn’t John Taylor question all of the messiness going on in the late 1880′s concerning polygamy that he said, “Is the Lord a child that He would change His mind?” after reading the 1890 Manifesto?
Mike Bennion:
Didn’t Peter and Paul have initial disagreements concerning the necessity of circumcision for Gentiles? Would you allow that all men are not perfect yet?
Chief:
What about the “revelation” that Smith had about men on the moon, something you won’t find in modern LDS literature?
Mike Bennion:
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/moonmen.htm
Chief:
Or how about Brigham Young’s “revelation” that Adam was in fact God?
Mike Bennion:
Can you show me where Brigham said that this was a “revelation”?
Since you put the word in “‘S
Chief:
All of these men professed to be speaking in the Spirit when they made these proclamations.
Mike Bennion:
Are you sure? Can you prove it from their quotes on the subject?
Chief:
How do you decide which revelations to believe in and which ones to discard as just their opinions?
Mike Bennion:
See the list above.
Chief:
Many Mormon presidents and apostles stated, before 1978, that the priesthood ban was God’s will, and they believed in it and were comfortable with it.
Mike Bennion:
It was. and they did, and they were. Just as the Jewish Apostles thought and did and were about the gospel going to the Gentiles, prior to Peter receiving revelation on the subject.
Chief:
Then they are so relieved when the revelation comes out lifting it. Kind of odd.
Mike Bennion:
You are assuming that all us Mormons hated Blacks and were happy that they were not able to recieve all the blessings of the gospel. This is so completely contrary to the feelings of all that I knew in the Church that I can’t find the words to express how foreign that concept is to me. It wasn’t odd at all. It was glorious! It was exciting! It was wonderful!
May there have been somne members that had used the proscription against Blacks as an excuse for predjudice or bigotry? Probably.
Were they in the majority? Absolutley not, in my experience, then and since.
Chief:
In a letter dated Feb 19, 1981 to BYU professor Eugene England, Bruce McConkie made some rather startling statements about Young:
Mike Bennion:
I wnat you to read two articles here:
The first covers the spcifics of the letter written by Elder McConkie.
I’m not going to paste the whole thing here. But it is there and suggests a number of possibilities on the subject, and how I approach something like this.
It is at this link:
http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/Adam-God6.html
The second article is about historical evidence in general. I found it edifying.
It is at this link:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=560
Chief:
that is why I can’t believe in the LDS living prophets and apostles, or in their olden-time prophets. They don’t talk the talk or walk the walk according to the standards God has for prophets.
Mike Bennion:
I respectfully and totally disagree. I think you need to listen to some of them. Go to http://www.byutv.org sometime and listen to some of the talks.
Chief:
There are many more examples of things like this where someone says something, supposedly under the inspiration of the Lord, only for that idea to become an embarrassment and to be covered up.
Mike Bennion:
So far you have mentioned several and we have covered those.
Chief:
The word of a prophet has to stand the test of time.
Mike Bennion:
Speaking of which; I don’t recall that anyone has yet addressed that list of items that Joseph could not have known when the Book of Mormon was published but are accurate and valid, having been confirmed later.
Are you planning to get to that or just keep changing the subject?
Chief:
I also vigorously disagree with Joseph Smith’s statement that “a prophet is only a prophet when he’s acting in the role of a prophet”
Mike Bennion:
You have the right to believe or disbelieve anything you want.
Did Peter always act like a prophet and Apostle? Did he deny that he knew the Christ? Did he have a temper? Did he ever change his mind about things? Do you really think that every word he said was inspired?
I think you would have a hard time supporting the idea that a prophet is always acting like one.
Chief:
throughout Scripture the prophets were to be men of godly character and repute. You can’t take the good with the bad; the person is either a prophet 100% of the time, or he’s no prophet at all.
Mike Bennion:
So did Peter start out strong? See the questions above.
Peter was one of the greatest of men. Yet it is true that the N.T. recounts some mortal weaknesses, but it also illustrates that he overcame them and was made strong by his faith in Jesus Christ.
this is the pattern for all men, including prophets.
Chief:
Look at the OT prophets; men knew them because of their reputations. People looked to them to be paragons of character and virtue. New Testament prophets like John the Baptist – “he will be great in the sight of the Lord” – continued that track record. Did they have their human failings? Sure they did! But in terms of when they were communicating with people, those guys and girls were all spot on.
Mike Bennion:
And you can prove that they never had doubts or mis-spoke or held private opinions in their entire lives?
Chief:
There was no, “Well, we now know these particular teachings of Elijah to be false, but boy he teaches the truth in these other areas!”
Mike Bennion:
1st Kings 17:20 And he (Elijah) cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?
So was Elijah correct in blaming God for killing th ewidow’s son?
Did Elijah have the Spirit? He did susequently raise the boy from the dead. But is his attitude to God initially corect here?
1st Kings 19:2 Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying, So let the agods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by to morrow about this time.
3 And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beer-sheba, which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there.
4 ¶ But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a ajuniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.
Was it right for Elijah to demand that God end his life before his misiion was over? Was he feeling sorry fo rhimself? did he have some doubts? Was he acting like a prophet here. If he believed in God why did he run from Jezebel and her henchmen?
Chief:
You either spoke the truth, or you were not a prophet of God. Period.
Mike Bennion:
So according to your logic, Elijah and Peter were not Prophets?
posted September 1, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Mike
To paraphrase Martin Luther:
Still then you require a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by The Bible and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of your prophets or the BoM for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Bible. Therefore I cannot believe in your prophets or the BoM, for to go against the Bible is neither right nor safe. I cannot do otherwise.
Now that I’ve said that:
Mormonism exchanges the Glory of God for the glory of man. It makes man the goal of God and not God Himself. God is the ruler and Creator of all things (by all I mean ALL, I do not mean “not all possible things”) any religion that puts man equal in any respect to God is a false religion.
posted September 1, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Chief:
Still then you require a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by The Bible and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of your prophets or the BoM for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Bible. Therefore I cannot believe in your prophets or the BoM, for to go against the Bible is neither right nor safe. I cannot do otherwise.
Mike Bennion:
And I will quote the Bible,
18 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
And I will quote Martin Luther:
“We cannot obtain a knowledge of the scripture by either study or with help of our own understanding. Your first responsibility is to begin with PRAYER. Ask th eLord go give you for his mercie’s sake th ecorrect understanding of his word. There is no one who can lay out the word of God than this word’s auther as he himself has said. “They Sahll be taught by God.’ ”
To refuse the concept of revelation is neither right not safe.
If you had been a Jew when Jesus came, would you have accepted a gospel brought by an angel? Would you have accepted the words of Peter and Paul as scripture? Could you have paid the price to be a Christian then, based on your stand against angels and revelation now?
Chief:
Now that I’ve said that:
Mormonism exchanges the Glory of God for the glory of man. It makes man the goal of God and not God Himself. God is the ruler and Creator of all things (by all I mean ALL, I do not mean “not all possible things”) any religion that puts man equal in any respect to God is a false religion.
Mike Bennion:
John 17:20 Neither apray I for these alone, but for them also which shall bbelieve on me through their word;
21 That they all may be aone; as thou, bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be aone, even as we are bone:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made aperfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast bloved them, as thou hast loved me.
Romans 8:14 For as many as are aled by the bSpirit of God, they are the csons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of abondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of badoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth awitness with our bspirit, that we are the cchildren of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; aheirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we bsuffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
1st John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the asons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall bappear, we shall be clike him; for we shall dsee him as he is.
What Father does not want his soms to become as good as he is?
What Father loses glory when his children excel? God glory is increased when we become like him as the Bible teaches.
posted September 1, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Mike
In your haste to answer you forgot who posted, it wasn’t Chief
posted September 1, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Mike
These verses when read in the context of the rest of the Bible do not say that man will become gods.
If you will notice in Romans 8 the Bible teaches we are God’s son’s by adoption because we are saved. We are not physically God’s offspring we are His creation. What are we heirs of? God’s power I think not, but rather we are heirs of the kingdom of God which is heaven. By that I mean that those who are saved will dwell in heaven with God as their King for all eternity.
i John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Note that we are God’s sons by adoption through faith in Jesus yet we we still do not have our inheritance but when Jesus appears we will be given a glorified body and we shall see Him in all His Glory
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known.
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
(verse 20) First take notice In this verse he gives a wider range to His prayers because before this He had been praying specifically for His apostles now He is praying for all believers.
(verse 21)To comprehend what was intended by saying, that Christ and the Father are one, we must take care not to deprive Christ of his office as Mediator, but must rather view him as he is the Head of the Church, and unite him with his members. Thus will the chain of thought be preserved, that, in order to prevent the unity of the Son with the Father from being fruitless and unavailing, the power of that unity must be diffused through the whole body of believers. Hence, too, we infer that we are one with the Son of God; not because he conveys his substance to us, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he imparts to us his life and all the blessings which he has received from the Father.
(verse 22)Let it be observed here, that, while a pattern of perfect happiness was exhibited in Christ, he had nothing that belonged peculiarly to himself, but rather was rich, in order to enrich those who believed in him. Our happiness lies in having the image of God restored and formed anew in us, which was defaced by sin. Christ is not only the lively image of God, in so far as he is the eternal Word of God. but even on his human nature, which he has in common with us, the likeness of the glory of the Father has been engraved, so as to form his members to the resemblance of it. Paul also teaches us this, that “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.2 Corinthians 3:18.” Hence it follows, that no one ought to be reckoned among the disciples of Christ, unless we perceive the glory of God impressed on him, as with a seal, by the likeness of Christ.
(verse23)for he intends to teach that in him dwells all fullness of blessings, and that what was concealed in God is now manifested in him, that he may impart it to his people.
Again no where in any of these Scriptures does it say that man can become a god.
If you would study the Bible in context you would know this.
posted September 1, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Mike
I’m not saying there is no revelation but I am saying that the BoM is not true and that Mormon prophets are false prophets.
to answer your absurd question
If you had been a Jew when Jesus came, would you have accepted a gospel brought by an angel?
An angel didn’t bring the Gospel Jesus did. An angel couldn’t have died on the Cross to pay for our sin’s.
Would you have accepted the words of Peter and Paul as scripture?
Acts 17:10-12 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. need I say more
I’m not against angels or revelation but when prophets claim to have a message from God that contradicts God’s Word (the Bible)I will have to stick with God’s Word. (just a few of the contradictions; baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, man can become a god, preexistent spirits, physically God’s children as in literal offspring of God, the great apostasy, continuing priesthood in the order of Melchizedech , to name few) these are just a few of the teachings that are contrary to the Bible.
posted September 2, 2007 at 2:36 am
Luke:
In your haste to answer you forgot who posted, it wasn’t Chief
Mike Bennion:
Sorry, I was on the way to work and had three things on my mind. Multi tasking is tough eh?
Points still valid though.
posted September 2, 2007 at 3:43 am
Luke:
These verses when read in the context of the rest of the Bible do not say that man will become gods.
Mike Bennion:
CONTEXT
Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father
See also Father; Immortality; Perfection
Gen. 1: 26 (Moses 2: 26) let them have dominion.
Gen. 3: 22 (Moses 4: 28) man is become as one of us.
Lev. 19: 2 (1 Pet. 1: 16) be holy: for I . . . am holy.
Ps. 8: 5 thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.
Ps. 8: 6 madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands.
Ps. 82: 6 ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High.
Matt. 5: 48 (3 Ne. 12: 48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father.
Luke 24: 39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
John 10: 34 (Ps. 82: 1-8; D&C 76: 58) Is it not written in your law . . . Ye are gods.
Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
Rom. 8: 17 heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
2 Cor. 3: 18 changed into the same image from glory to glory.
Gal. 4: 7 if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Eph. 4: 13 Till we all come . . . unto a perfect man.
Heb. 12: 9 be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live.
1 Jn. 3: 2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him.
Rev. 3: 21 him that overcometh will . . . sit with me in my throne.
2 Ne. 2: 25 men are, that they might have joy.
3 Ne. 9: 17 to them have I given to become the sons of God.
3 Ne. 27: 27 what manner of men ought ye to be . . . even as I am.
3 Ne. 28: 10 your joy shall be full . . . shall be even as I am.
D&C 14: 7 you shall have eternal life.
D&C 88: 29 Ye who are quickened by . . . celestial glory.
D&C 88: 107 saints shall . . . be made equal with him.
D&C 93: 20 you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified.
D&C 93: 29 Man was also in the beginning with God.
D&C 121: 32 every man shall enter into his eternal presence.
D&C 129: 3 spirits of just men made perfect.
D&C 130: 1 he is a man like ourselves.
D&C 130: 22 Father has a body of flesh and bones.
D&C 131: 2 (D&C 131: 1-4) in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order.
D&C 132: 20 (D&C 132: 1-24) shall they be gods, because they have all power.
D&C 133: 57 that men might be made partakers of the glories.
Moses 1: 39 to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
JS-H 1: 17 I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy.
Luke:
If you will notice in Romans 8 the Bible teaches we are God’s son’s by adoption because we are saved. We are not physically God’s offspring we are His creation. What are we heirs of? God’s power I think not, but rather we are heirs of the kingdom of God which is heaven. By that I mean that those who are saved will dwell in heaven with God as their King for all eternity.
Mike Bennion:
Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Luke:
1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Mike Bennion:
When a son is adopted he can inherit all that his Father posesses.
A man doesn’t adopt a dog. And adopted sons are still sons, of the same race and type as him who adopts them. Israel lost the right to be called sons because of the Fall of Adam and their own rebellion against God. Jesus closes that separation and REDEEMS them, You can’t redeem or repuchase something that youy didn’t own in th efirst place. The Bible talks over and over again about REdemption, REsurrection, REconciliation, and so on. This is the whole point of the story of the Prodigal son. The son was one of the family, he wasted his inheritance by riotous living. The Father welcomed him back when he came to himself. The Father offered sacrifices, killing the fatted calf as a thank offering at his return. “God created man in his own image” says Genesis, “In the image of God created he him” it says, “Male and female created he them”. And later it says the Adam had a son “in his image” and “called his name Seth”. It is the precise language that God uses to describe the creation of man.
It is only through the language of Family and the symbols within it that we can understand God’s love for us.
Luke:
Note that we are God’s sons by adoption through faith in Jesus yet we we still do not have our inheritance but when Jesus appears we will be given a glorified body and we shall see Him in all His Glory
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known.
Mike Bennion:
Because we have fallen, and Christ has redeemed us. We will be restored to a remembrance of the former relationship, before we lost it.
Luke:
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;21 THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY MAY ALSO BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE: 23 I IN THEM AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
(verse 20) First take notice In this verse he gives a wider range to His prayers because before this He had been praying specifically for His apostles now He is praying for all believers.
(verse 21)To comprehend what was intended by saying, that Christ and the Father are one, we must take care not to deprive Christ of his office as Mediator, but must rather view him as he is the Head of the Church, and unite him with his members. Thus will the chain of thought be preserved, that, in order to prevent the unity of the Son with the Father from being fruitless and unavailing, the power of that unity must be diffused through the whole body of believers. Hence, too, we infer that we are one with the Son of God; not because he conveys his substance to us, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he imparts to us his life and all the blessings which he has received from the Father.
(verse 22)Let it be observed here, that, while a pattern of perfect happiness was exhibited in Christ, he had nothing that belonged peculiarly to himself, but rather was rich, in order to enrich those who believed in him. Our happiness lies in having the image of God restored and formed anew in us, which was defaced by sin. Christ is not only the lively image of God, in so far as he is the eternal Word of God. but even on his human nature, which he has in common with us, the likeness of the glory of the Father has been engraved, so as to form his members to the resemblance of it. Paul also teaches us this, that “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.2 Corinthians 3:18.” Hence it follows, that no one ought to be reckoned among the disciples of Christ, unless we perceive the glory of God impressed on him, as with a seal, by the likeness of Christ.
(verse23)for he intends to teach that in him dwells all fullness of blessings, and that what was concealed in God is now manifested in him, that he may impart it to his people.
Again no where in any of these Scriptures does it say that man can become a god.
If you would study the Bible in context you would know this.
Mike Bennion:
I highlighted the words in John that specify that the oneness we enjoy with Christ is exactly the oneness that Jesus and the Father enjoy. Jesus didn’t say “that may may be one sort of like us” He specified that the unity is preciesly that shared by the Godhead. If you would study the Bible you would know this.
Luke:
I’m not saying there is no revelation but I am saying that the BoM is not true and that Mormon prophets are false prophets.
Mike Bennion:
And I am bearing my solemn witness gained by the Bible pattern of taking our questions to the Lord in Prayer, that the Book of Mormon is the very word of God, and that those men who wrote it and those who translated it and those who teach it today are prophets of God the Eternal Father in every sense of the Word. And, if you are not saying there is no revelation, please enlighten us. What would you say is revelation today? Explain what revelations God has given now.
Luke:
to answer your absurd question
Mike Bennion:
The question must have hit home for you to ridicule it and me.
Very Christian of you.
Luke:
If you had been a Jew when Jesus came, would you have accepted a gospel brought by an angel?
An angel didn’t bring the Gospel Jesus did. An angel couldn’t have died on the Cross to pay for our sin’s.
Mike Bennion:
Luke 1:11 And there appeared unto him an ANGEL OF THE LORD standing on the right side of the altar of incense
12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13 But the ANGEL said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I aknow this? for I am an bold man, and my wife well cstricken in years.
19 And the aangel answering said unto him, I am bGabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the ANGEL GABRIEL was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
28 And the ANGEL came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And THE ANGEL said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 2:9 And, lo, the ANGEL OF THE LORD came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And THE ANGEL said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you agood tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with THE ANGEL a MULTITUDE OF THE HEAVENLY HOST praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
No, an angel didn’t die on the Cross, but they brought the message.
I think you need to read the work of your namesake Luke more carefully. Angle’s were an integral part of announcing the mission and work of God.
As a Jew in that day, would you have accepted that Angels had announced the advent of the Messiah if you had not seen the angels yourself? And if not how would you have known? What of the Lord’s word to Thomas: “Blessed are they who have not seen and have yet believed.”?
Luke:
Would you have accepted the words of Peter and Paul as scripture?
Acts 17:10-12 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. need I say more.
Mike Bennion:
Yes you do. The scriptures they searched were not the New Testament. they were the Old Testament. And many believed, but many did not. And those that believed, accepted the visit of Angels to the earth to announce the coming of the Lord. So I ask again, why is it impossible for Angels to bring a mesaage from God today?
Luke:
I’m not against angels or revelation but when prophets claim to have a message from God that contradicts God’s Word (the Bible)I will have to stick with God’s Word.
Mike Bennion:
Just what the Jews who rejected Jesus said about his words versus the Old Testament.
Luke:
(just a few of the contradictions; baptism for the dead,
Mike Bennion:
1st Corinthians 15:29, 1st Peter Chapters 3 and 4.
Luke:
celestial marriage,
Mike Bennion:
Gen. 2: 24 (Gen. 2: 18; Matt. 19: 5; Moses 3: 24; Abr. 5: 18) cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
Eccl. 3: 14 whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever.
Matt. 16: 19 (Matt. 18: 18) whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Mark 10: 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
1 Cor. 11: 11 neither is the man without the woman . . . in the Lord.
Eph. 5: 31 a man . . . shall be joined unto his wife . . . be one flesh.
1 Pet. 3: 7 heirs together of the grace of life.
Hel. 10: 7 whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven.
Luke:
man can become a god,
Mike Bennion:
See the list of Scriptures under Man, Potential to become like God, earlier in this post.
Luke:
preexistent spirits,
Mike Bennion:
Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.
Job 38: 7 all the sons of God shouted for joy.
Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Jer. 1: 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.
Zech. 12: 1 Lord . . . formeth the spirit of man within him.
John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.
Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Rom. 8: 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.
Eph. 1: 4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.
Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.
Jude 1: 6 angels which kept not their first estate.
Rev. 12: 7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon.
Luke:
physically God’s children as in literal offspring of God,
Mike Bennion:
Covered above twice already.
Luke:
the great apostasy,
Mike Bennion:
Isa. 24: 5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa. 29: 13 this people draw near me with their mouth.
Isa. 60: 2 darkness shall cover the earth.
Amos 8: 11 a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord.
Matt. 13: 25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat.
Matt. 24: 5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24: 24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets.
John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.
1 Cor. 11: 18 there be divisions among you.
Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him.
Gal. 3: 1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.
2 Thes. 2: 3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first.
1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.
1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.
2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.
2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.
2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.
2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.
Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.
James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.
2 Pet. 2: 1 false prophets also among the people.
2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.
Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.
Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.
Rev. 13: 7 to make war with the saints
Luke:
continuing priesthood in the order of Melchizedech
Mike Bennion:
Gen. 14: 18 (Heb. 7: 1) Melchizedek . . . priest of the most high God.
Ex. 19: 6 ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests.
1 Sam. 2: 35 I will raise me up a faithful priest.
Ps. 110: 4 (Heb. 5: 6; Heb. 7: 17, 21) Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Zech. 6: 13 he shall be a priest upon his throne.
Heb. 8: 4 if . . . he should not be a priest.
Rev. 1: 6 (Rev. 5: 10) made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.
Rev. 20: 6 they shall be priests of God and of Christ.
Luke:
these are just a few of the teachings that are contrary to the Bible.
Mike Bennion:
The Biblical references above disagree with you.
By refusing to inquire of the Lord concerning these things you find yourself in the same condition as Laman and Lemuel in this following passage in the Book of Mormon:
1st Nephi 15:1 And it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had been carried away in the spirit, and seen all these things, I returned to the tent of my father.
2 And it came to pass that I beheld my brethren, and they were disputing one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them.
3 For he truly spake many great things unto them, which were hard to be understood, save a man should inquire of the Lord; and they being hard in their hearts, therefore they did not look unto the Lord as they ought.
6 And it came to pass that after I had received astrength I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations.
7 And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the aolive-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.
8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?
9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.
10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?
11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and aask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.
posted September 2, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Chief,
I asked for clear and plain scriptures and this is the best there is? Your case is without foundation.
Chief: If the Holy Spirit is not God, could the gospel writer say this?
Matt 1: 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
GB: The answer is yes. Nothing in that verse requires the Holy Ghost to be God. And nothing in that verse expresses or implies it.
Chief: Remember, the Jews knew that only God could save people from sin. So for Jesus to be able to do that, His parentage had to be God.
GB: God the Eternal Father was Jesus’ Father, not the Holy Ghost. In some way the Holy Ghost was involved in the conception process but the Bible is clear about Who Jesus’ Father is and it isn’t the Holy Ghost.
Chief: If what Mary carried was conceived from the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit has to be God.
GB: Again, Nothing in that verse requires the Holy Ghost to be God. And nothing in that verse expresses or implies it. You are grasping at straws here. The phrase “from the Holy Spirit” means that her “unwedded” pregnancy was not a sin because it had approval “from the Holy Spirit”. God the Eternal Father is Jesus’ Father not the Holy Spirit.
Chief: Matt 12:32 – “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
GB: Again, Nothing in that verse requires the Holy Ghost to be God. And nothing in that verse expresses or implies it. The witness of the Holy Ghost is a Spirit to spirit witness. To deny such an irrefutable witness is unforgivable. The witness of the mortal Christ (or the Fathers voice from heaven) was physical to physical. To deny such a witness is forgivable.
Chief: Acts 1: 15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”
GB: Men speaking scripture when moved upon by the Holy Ghost doesn’t require the Holy Ghost to be God. He is only the messenger of Gods will, not God himself. And nothing in that verse expresses or implies him to be God.
Chief: Ephesians 4: 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
GB: The Holy Spirit does belong to God, but so do I, that doesn’t make me or Him God.
Chief: Hebrews 3:7So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you hear his voice, 8do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, 9where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did.
Or this:
Hebrews 9: 15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16″This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
GB: Again nothing in those verses expresses or implies that the Holy Ghost is God.
Chief: Romans 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
GB: Again nothing in that verse expresses or implies that the Holy Ghost is God.
Chief: Now, if you are looking for a specific verse that says, “Hello, my name is the Holy Ghost and I’m God, too!”, there isn’t one.
GB: Well at least FINALLY, you admit it. The Bible is silent about the Holy Ghost being God.
Chief (August 29, 2007 10:02 PM): There is an old saying, “Speak up where the Bible speaks up, and be silent where the Bible is silent.”
GB: Since the Bible is SILENT about the Holy Ghost being God, You should be also. The doctrine of the Trinity clearly is not based on the Bible.
Chief: In my mind, is the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead?
GB: And I agree 100 %, the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead. But NOWHERE does it say that he is God. You claim that the Bible is inerrant and complete and that the doctrine of the trinity is clearly and plainly taught in its pages. But you have shown that belief to be in error. The Bible doesn’t teach that the Holy Ghost is God.
Chief: It’s what God thinks of your beliefs that matters.
GB: I agree that statement 100%.
To get back to the separateness of the members of the Godhead; since you made no objections to my list of Bible scriptures, I take it that the current score (at the top if the second inning so to speak) is Chief: 6 and GB: 29. And you are up to bat. I am waiting to see if you strike out here.
posted September 2, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Mike, Mike, Mike,
Why can not quote Scripture in context?
I do not have the time to go over every single Scripture you said in your post. And it would be silly of me to do so, because you will only quote more of the Bible taken out of context to support your beliefs. But I will say that the more you post the more I see that the Gospel mormons teach and preach is man centered and not God centered it exalts man not God.
Interesting thought here, Mormons believe that they are the only true church if that is true then only Mormons’ can be saved and everyone else is not a Christian. What about all the Christians in the supposed Great Apostasy were they Christian or just misguided fools?
This is my last post
To quote from an eighteenth century preacher(I’ll let you try to figure out who it is)”This is the difference between the joy of the hypocrite, and the joy of the true saint. The hypocrite rejoices in self; self is the first foundation of his joy. The true saint rejoices in God…True saints have their minds in the first place, pleased with the glorious things of God. And this is the spring of all their delights, and pleasures. But the dependence of the affections of the hypocrite is in reverse order: they first rejoice that they are made much of by God, and then on that ground, God seems in a sort, lovely to them.”
My heart is held captive to God, my conscience to the Bible.
Sola Scriptura……….It’s been fun. May the God of Glory open your eyes to the truth of His Word
posted September 3, 2007 at 12:18 am
Luke:
Mike, Mike, Mike,
Mike Bennion:
Yes I like my name too.
Luke:
Why can not quote Scripture in context?
Mike Bennion:
If you take the time to go over the posts I have made in these threads over the past several weeks you will find much more contest and depth than anything you provided. There are a larger number of scriptures on each suject quoted as well.
Luke:
I do not have the time to go over every single Scripture you said in your post. And it would be silly of me to do so,
Mike Bennion:
An interesting way of sayint that you are overwhelmed. I did comment on each of your points. those who war really interested will go and read each Scripture and decide the context for themselves.
Luke:
because you will only quote more of the Bible taken out of context to support your beliefs.
Mike Bennion:
Your saying so doesn’t make it so.
Luke:
But I will say that the more you post the more I see that the Gospel mormons teach and preach is man centered and not God centered it exalts man not God.
Mike Bennion:
Since the majority of the quotes are from the Bible I guess it is the Bible’s fault. If you have a problem perhapos you should take it up with the scriptures.
Luke:
Interesting thought here,
Mike Bennion:
To whom?
Luke:
Mormons believe that they are the only true church if that is true then only Mormons’ can be saved and everyone else is not a Christian. What about all the Christians in the supposed Great Apostasy were they Christian or just misguided fools?
Mike Bennion:
See Baptism for the dead: 1st Corinthians 15:29 The way is clear for all to accept the Gospel. What mechanism is in place according to your doctrine to save those who never even heard of Jesus Christ, muxh less accepted Him as their Savior?
Luke:
This is my last post
Mike Bennion:
Promise?
Luke:To quote from an eighteenth century preacher(I’ll let you try to figure out who it is)
Mike Bennion:
What…? You didn’t like that you don’t have a monopoly on Martiun Luther quotes?
Luke:
“This is the difference between the joy of the hypocrite, and the joy of the true saint. The hypocrite rejoices in self; self is the first foundation of his joy. The true saint rejoices in God…True saints have their minds in the first place, pleased with the glorious things of God. And this is the spring of all their delights, and pleasures. But the dependence of the affections of the hypocrite is in reverse order: they first rejoice that they are made much of by God, and then on that ground, God seems in a sort, lovely to them.”
Mike Bennion:
2nd Nephi 25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to apersuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by bgrace that we are saved, after all we can cdo.
24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we akeep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.
25 For, for this end was the alaw given; wherefore the law hath become bdead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.
26 And we atalk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we bprophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our cchildren may know to what source they may look for a dremission of their sins.
27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.
28 And now behold, my people, ye are a astiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a btestimony against you; for they are sufficient to cteach any man the dright way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law.
29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and aworship him with all your bmight, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.
Sounds real “man centered” to me.
Luke:
My heart is held captive to God, my conscience to the Bible.
Sola Scriptura……….
Mike Bennion:
I Believe in Christ
Fervently
31243, Hymns, I Believe in Christ, no. 134
1. I believe in Christ; he is my King!
With all my heart to him I’ll sing;
I’ll raise my voice in praise and joy,
In grand amens my tongue employ.
I believe in Christ; he is God’s Son.
On earth to dwell his soul did come.
He healed the sick; the dead he raised.
Good works were his; his name be praised.
2. I believe in Christ; oh blessed name!
As Mary’s Son he came to reign
’Mid mortal men, his earthly kin,
To save them from the woes of sin.
I believe in Christ, who marked the path,
Who did gain all his Father hath,
Who said to men: “Come, follow me,
That ye, my friends, with God may be.”
3. I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God!
My feet he plants on gospel sod.
I’ll worship him with all my might;
He is the source of truth and light.
I believe in Christ; he ransoms me.
From Satan’s grasp he sets me free,
And I shall live with joy and love
In his eternal courts above.
4. I believe in Christ; he stands supreme!
From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain,
His voice is heard: “Ye shall obtain.”
I believe in Christ; so come what may,
With him I’ll stand in that great day
When on this earth he comes again
To rule among the sons of men.
Text: Bruce R. McConkie, 1915–1985. © 1972 IRI
Music: John Longhurst, b. 1940. © 1985 IRI
Luke:
It’s been fun. May the God of Glory open your eyes to the truth of His Word
Mike Bennion:
He already has.
posted September 3, 2007 at 8:52 am
Luke,
You’re a “Sola Scriptura” guy, perhaps you can give me an answer to a question I’ve posted other places on these Blogs (No one seems to want to answer.)
To paraphrase:
Dr Mohler is a Southern Baptist, Southern Baptists claim the Bible is the sole source of their doctrine. (Sola Scriptura)
Dr. Mohler also claims that Mormons aren’t Christians because our beliefs are not compatable with “traditional Christian Orthadoxy.”
Front and center is our rejection, according to Dr. Mohler, of the “Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity.”
Here’s the rub, Catholic scholars freely admit that the Doctrine of the Trinity borrows heavily for Greek Philosophy: the Bible is NOT the sole source of this doctrine!
see http://www.cornerstone1.org/trin-gp.htm
What have I gotten wrong here?
see my post on the 16th at7:50am to “lets call Mormons ‘non’traditional’ Christians.
posted September 3, 2007 at 11:29 am
Chief1989 and GB,
If I might add a few thoughts here. Your discussion of “Chief: Remember, the Jews knew that only God could save people from sin. So for Jesus to be able to do that, His parentage had to be God.”
I think that the key here is that no man/woman can withstand God and live. In order for any of us to be able to be in God’s presence we have to be transfigured by the Holy Ghost. Every time in the Bible, and also by Joseph Smith, that God or Jehovah spoke to man face to face that person had to be transfigured by the Holy Ghost. The wording in the NT of Mary seems muddled but consistent with this statement.
Therefore for me the HG overshadowed Mary so that she could conceive the Son of God.
As to the Godliness of the Holy Ghost I think you are both wrong. It is pretty clear from the Gospel of John that Jesus Christ was a God before He came to earth. It is my belief that Jesus Christ (Jehovah) had ALL of the attributes of God The Father except that He did not have a physical body like His Father. Because Jesus had all of the attributes and authority given to Him by the Father He was able to create the earth and everything on it.
I also believe, although it is not written, that the Holy Ghost was second only onto Jehovah in the creation of God’s spirit children. That the HG also has all of the attributes of God The Father.
Jehovah’s role was to create the earth and become the savior. The HG’s role is to be the testifier of Jehovah and God The Father. As such the HG is also a God without a body, He is the third member of the Godhead. I believe that the HG will obtain His physical body just prior to the end.
Now as to why sinning against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, I believe that when we receive the “witness of the Holy Ghost” that we will actually view Jesus Christ in person. It won’t be a dream or a vision, He will actually be there. If we then reject this witness of the HG then our sin will be unpardonable. I also believe that there will be very few who will receive this witness.
Stan
posted September 3, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Stan,
I think you are missing my point. No where have I said that the Holy Ghost is not a God. My point is that the Bible DOES NOT teach that the Holy Ghost is a God in clear and plain terms. And for those “sola scriptura” folks to be trinitarians is truely hypocritical.
BTW you statement “That the HG also has all of the attributes of God The Father.” isn’t complete as you show in you next paragraph. It should read “That the HG also has all of the attributes of God The Father with the exception of a physical body of flesh and bone.”
My other point is that the Bible clearly and plainly teaches that the Father and the Son are separate individuals united with the Holy Ghost in the purpose of doing God’s work. The statements about being one were to help people understand this unity.
posted September 3, 2007 at 7:28 pm
GB you and I are in complete agreement. Maybe my wording “As such the HG is also a God without a body, He is the third member of the Godhead. I believe that the HG will obtain His physical body just prior to the end.” isn’t clearly stated.
I just don’t understand why Chief can’t see the beauty and the simplicity of it.
Stan
posted September 4, 2007 at 9:43 am
My Friends,
We have spoken at length about a great many things, and we are nowhere nearer to resolution than when we first began. Let me get a few things off of my chest:
GB: You are winning 26 to 9? You are waiting to see if I “strike out”? I had no idea we could reduce religious faith to a verse-posting competition. He who posts the most scripture verses in support of his/her position wins? I am praying for you, my friend, because somewhere along the way you have lost sight of what faith is really for.
Stan: I appreciate the beauty and simplicity of the Godhead. It is truly a wonderous thing. I just don’t believe what you believe because nowhere does the Bible teach a council of gods, more than one god, or a bunch of higher intelligences out there. Just God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; one God united in thought, purpose, and spirit.
Mike: You questioned whether I was reading your posts. I have, and I am. I did answer your question about Joseph Smith and how all of those things got into the BoM, three times to be exact. You either missed my posts or did not like the answer I gave. I have no idea if a personage appeared to Smith or not. If one did, it was something not of this world masquerading as an angel of light.
About Brigham Young: You have a serious problem here. You asked if he really was speaking in his prophet’s role when he came up with his Adam-God theory. I believe he believed he was: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and WHICH GOD REVEALED TO ME (emphasis mine) — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.) Young believed this doctrine to be of the utmost importance: “Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.” (Conference address, April 9, 1852). Young also believed that whenever he preached, it was as if the Lord was speaking: “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” (Journal of Discourses 13:95).
Most of Young’s contemporaries thought this was divine revelation:
First Counselor Heber Kimball – “I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth–the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted. That Son called twelve men and ordained them to be Apostles, and when he departed the keys of the kingdom were deposited with three of those twelve, viz.: Peter, James, and John” (Journal of Discourses 4:1).
Fourth President Wilford Woodruff – “Brother Brigham said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ — Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Arkangel (sic).” (Personal journal, Feb. 19, 1854)
Young’s teachings even agreed with Joseph Smith, who said, “Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 157).
Mike, the questions you have to ask yourself are these:
-Was Brigham Young a living prophet?
-Did Brigham Young have divine revelations?
-If you were alive in the 1850′s-1870′s, would you believe that Brigham Young spoke for God?
Those questions are key, because later Mormon presidents and apostles derided this doctrine as false teaching:
Bruce McConkie – “anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved.” (Seven Deadly Heresies)
Spencer Kimball – “We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine” (Church News, 10/9/76).
Paul says in Galatians 1 that anyone who teaches false doctrine is to be eternally condemned. Modern LDS prophets and apostles have identified this Adam-God teaching to be false doctrine. So you have a conundrum: either Brigham Young was a false prophet who is eternally condemned now (which would mean that the line of apostolic succession in the LDS church was broken), or, if Young was a prophet, seer, and revelator, then the doctrine is true and modern LDS prophets and apostles are in apostasy and stand condemned by their own words. Remember, a true prophet must have the correct theology of God (Deut 13: 1-3).
Mike, this is why I can’t believe in the prophets and apostles of the LDS church. I can also show you several instances where Joseph Smith changed his own “revelations”, from the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenants. It was actions like this that led to many of his original converts to leave the church, or at least declare that he was a fallen prophet. And please do not insult my intelligence by claiming that Young was misquoted or misunderstood. He knew exactly what he was saying, and firmly believed that when he spoke, it was as if the Lord Himself was speaking.
You also make mention again and again about revelation, that non-Mormons don’t believe in it. And I have stated more than once that I totally believe in continuing revelation from God. None of us can know what God’s will is for our lives without revelation. I just don’t happen to believe in revelations that do not agree with Scripture. In Matt 28, Jesus tells us, “19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Notice that He says “teaching them to obey everything I have COMMANDED you.” Not ‘that I will continue to command you’, but ‘have commanded you.’ Past tense. The revelation comes when you apply the Lord’s teaching to your own life, not come up with some new commands or directives not found in Scripture.
Stan: You and GB continually come up with Greek philosophy. However, let’s take a look at something:
Christian belief – One God who is immutably the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Greek belief – Pantheon of gods who are capricious and can change their minds.
Mormon belief – Pantheon of gods who can change their minds.
Which system is more like the Greek?
That is all I have for now…
posted September 4, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Chief: You are winning 26 to 9? You are waiting to see if I “strike out”? I had no idea we could reduce religious faith to a verse-posting competition. He who posts the most scripture verses in support of his/her position wins?
GB: So again you didn’t read my post carefully. That is a bad habit you have of not reading posts carefully. I said the score is 29 to 6.
So then, are you giving up? Throwing in the towel? Admitting defeat?
Couldn’t you find any more scriptures to support your position? I found more to support mine.
Chief, Chief, Chief,
Now you’re confusing Greek PHILOSOPHY and Greek MYTHOLOGY. You are the one that believes in the god of Greek philosophy. You know the one described in the doctrine of the trinity. The multiple gods described in Greek mythology weren’t perfect, or united and they exhibited many of the fragilities of the human race. There is a reason that it is called Mythology.
For you to say “Mormon belief – Pantheon of gods who can change their minds.” is for you to bear false witness.
It is interesting to me that the spirit that leads you to oppose the LDS church also leads you to bear false witness. Can you explain to me why that is?
posted September 4, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Chief:
blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
I have no idea if a personage appeared to Smith or not. If one did, it was something not of this world masquerading as an angel of light.
Mike Bennion:
So that is your reasonable, rational, alternate explanation? The whole thing? It’s interesting that that is what the Jews accused Jesus of. Yhey said he had a devil, and that is why he could do all the wonderful things that he did. Had his day been among yours would you have been among their number? How would you have known how to sort out truth from error then? Jesus had several suggestions for those who wondered if what he was teaching was of God:
John 7: 17
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Matt. 7: 16, 20
16 Ye shall know them by their bfruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
• • •
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
How do you know that the angels that appeared to Zachariahs, and Mary and the Shepherds in Luke were not something “not of this world masqueading as an angel of light”?
If you are disputing about prophets disagreeing among themselves then you had best take the Bible to task:
John 1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
1 Jn. 4: 12
12 No man hath bseen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a lift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand awhile I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my bback parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Gen. 32: 30 I have seen God face to face.
Ex. 19: 11 Lord will come down in the sight of all the people.
Ex. 19: 21 charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze.
Ex. 24: 11 nobles of the children of Israel . . . saw God.
Ex. 33: 11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face.
Deut. 34: 10 Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.
Judg. 13: 22 We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
1 Kgs. 11: 9 Lord . . . had appeared unto him twice.
Job 19: 26 (Moses 5: 10) in my flesh shall I see God.
Isa. 6: 5 mine eyes have seen . . . the Lord.
Matt. 5: 8 (3 Ne. 12:
Matt. 11: 27 Father . . . to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Acts 7: 56 I see . . . the Son of man standing on the right hand.
1 Jn. 3: 2 we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
Rev. 1: 17 when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.
Rev. 22: 4 they shall see his face.
I, as a Latter-day Saint, am not obligated to accept as scripture anything that is not in the Standard Works. That is the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenats and the Pearl of Great Price.
I don’t see The Journal of Discourses, the Speeches of Brigham Young, the entries of Private Journals or other such things on that list.
So everthing that you just posted means very little. If it’s not in the Scriptures I don’t have to defend it.
You, on the other hand, maintain that the Bible is the word of God.
So you need to explain the contradicition above. The Standard Works do explain it. But you don’t believe in those, so please, explain:
1. How you know where an angel comes from? Use only the Bible as your source.
2. Explain the contradiction above. Use only the Bible as your source.
posted September 4, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Chief said:
“Stan: You and GB continually come up with Greek philosophy. However, let’s take a look at something:
Christian belief – One God who is immutably the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Greek belief – Pantheon of gods who are capricious and can change their minds.
Mormon belief – Pantheon of gods who can change their minds.
Which system is more like the Greek?”
Chief you probably got me confused with someone who knows something about the Greeks, especially with philosophy. I am probably one of the few who were able to get a college degree without taking a philosophy class.
You have some strong points about BY, I will dig further into his statements.
My understanding of the Adam-God theory is that after the resurrection, those who receive the highest degree of glory will be more like a corporate organization. Assuming that I will make it, I will be responsible to one of the prophets of my dispensation, who will be responsible to Joseph Smith who will be responsible to Adam who will be responsible to Jesus Christ who will be responsible to God The Father.
Therefore everyone who lived on this earth will go through Adam. IE The Adam-God theory.
But, your statement that God does not change His mind conflicts with the Bible.
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
1 Judges 2:18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.
I don’t know about you Chief, but when I repent, I have a change of mind and I change my ways.
Moses’ interaction with Jehovah (Mormons say pre-mortal Jesus) Deuteronomy 9:12 – 29
12 And the LORD said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.
13 Furthermore the LORD spake unto me, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
14 Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.
For the Lord to say “let me alone” tells me that Moses was pleading for the lives of the children of Israel.
15 So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.
16 And I looked, and, behold, ye had sinned against the LORD your God, and had made you a molten calf: ye had turned aside quickly out of the way which the LORD had commanded you.
17 And I took the two tables, and cast them out of my two hands, and brake them before your eyes.
18 And I fell down before the LORD, as at the first, forty days and forty nights: I did neither eat bread, nor drink water, because of all your sins which ye sinned, in doing wickedly in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also.
“The Lord hearkened” (listened) to Moses.
20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time.
The Lord told Moses that He was going to destroy Aaron.
21 And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.
22 And at Taberah, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah, ye provoked the LORD to wrath.
23 Likewise when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and ye believed him not, nor hearkened to his voice.
24 Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you.
25 Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.
26 I prayed therefore unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, destroy not thy people and thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
Moses again pleading with the Lord not to destroy the people.
27 Remember thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:
28 Lest the land whence thou broughtest us out say, Because the LORD was not able to bring them into the land which he promised them, and because he hated them, he hath brought them out to slay them in the wilderness.
29 Yet they are thy people and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest out by thy mighty power and by thy stretched out arm.
Because we know that the Lord did not destroy the children of Israel, The Lord must have changed His mind.
“Stan: I appreciate the beauty and simplicity of the Godhead. It is truly a wonderous thing. I just don’t believe what you believe because nowhere does the Bible teach a council of gods, more than one god, or a bunch of higher intelligences out there. Just God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; one God united in thought, purpose, and spirit.”
Chief:
Why do you suppose that the following verse implies that God is conversing with someone?
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Key words “US” and “OUR”. Both can be only plural in usage.
Again;
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
“As one of US” Plural again.
Chief, explain your understanding of John
John 1:1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
“The Word was with God” You say He is the trinity God. How can He be the trinity God and still be “with God”.
The best explanation is; that, The Word is both Jesus Christ, and the Jehovah of the OT. That, Jesus Christ has every attribute of His Father “God” except that in the pre-existence (beginning), Jesus did not have a body of flesh and bone like His Father “God”. This is why John said that Jesus Christ was “God”. Under the direction and the authority of “The Father” Jesus Christ created the earth. Now, Genesis’ God speaking in plural, and John saying that The Word was with God makes perfect sense.
Then, to me, all of the Bible scriptures that suggest that God The Father, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost are separate makes perfect sense.
Also, all of the other verses that suggest that Jesus Christ, The Holy Ghost, and God The Father are one in a physical being can be understood by acknowledging that Jesus Christ, being perfect, is in the exact image of His Father. Just like Jesus said John 14:9 ” Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
Notice here that Jesus is NOT saying that He is The Father, but, that He is IN The Father and The Father is IN Him.
Chief, to me, it is just like some earthly fathers and sons are extremely similar in appearance and their actions.
As a final note, I did not have any sons, only daughters. But, if you take the pictures of my middle daughter and compare them to her daughter from the ages of one to five you cannot tell who is who. When I get a call from one of them, it takes me time to determine who is calling me unless one says “dad” or “grandpa” because their voice and manner of speech is so similar.
Stan
posted September 4, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Stan,
So was Brigham lying when he said “God revealed this to me?” As for other misconceptions, let’s take a look at the First Vision account of Joseph:
Joseph Smith’s Official
First Vision Account:
Sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country … and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties …. Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist … my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect … but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible … to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong …. So in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty … I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God …. I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head …. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description …. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other ‘This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!’ …. I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong …. I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors [believers] of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age … yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects all united to persecute me.
— Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith – History 1:5-8, 14-19, 22
——————————————————————————–
The Importance of Joseph Smith’s Vision
Joseph Smith’s First Vision Story — cited above — is one of the foundational truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Its importance has been described as second only to belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.1 Mormon Prophet and President Gordon B. Hinckley declared:
Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud (General Conference address as published in The Ensign, November, 2002, p. 80).
If there is even a remote chance that this pivotal point in the Mormon story is a fabrication, what Latter-day Saint would not want any and all of the pertinent facts? This article provides historical evidence that puts Joseph Smith’s First Vision story in a new light. Many Latter-day Saints today remain unaware of significant historical details which have been intentionally omitted or suppressed, including the following facts:2
According to the historical evidence Joseph Smith could not have been stirred by an 1820 revival to ask which church was true, since there was no revival in 1820 anywhere near Manchester, New York, where he was living. A revival as described by Joseph Smith did occur there beginning in the spring of 1824. However, this then seriously disrupts Joseph’s whole story, because there is not enough time between the First vision and the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon for all the events described in the First Vision story.
There are other earlier accounts of the First Vision, including one handwritten by Joseph Smith himself, which make no mention of an appearance of the Father and the Son. Instead, these earlier accounts refer to an angel, a spirit, many angels, or the Son. The story in its present form with the Father and the Son, did not appear until 1838, many years after Joseph claimed to have had the vision.
The details now known about Joseph s early life contradict his claim that he was persecuted in 1820 for telling the story of the First Vision. As a young man he participated in Methodist meetings, and later joined a Methodist church class. No persecution is recorded.
No 1820 Revival
Joseph Smith’s neighborhood experienced no revival in 1820 such as he described, in which great multitudes joined the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. According to early sources, including church conference reports, newspapers, church periodicals, presbytery records and published interviews, nothing occurred in 1820-21 that fits Joseph’s description. There were no significant gains in church membership in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area,3 during 1820-21 such as accompany great revivals. For example, in 1820, the Baptist Church in Palmyra only received 8 people through profession of faith and baptism, the Presbyterian church added 14 members, while the Methodist circuit lost 6 members, dropping from 677 in 1819 to 671 in 1820 and down to 622 in 1821 (see Geneva area Presbyterian Church Records, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, PA; Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY; Minutes of the [Methodist] annual Conference, Ontario Circuit, 1818-1821, pp. 312, 330, 346, 366).
In his 1838 account, Joseph Smith stated that his mother, sister and two brothers were led to join the local Presbyterian Church as a result of that 1820 revival. However, Joseph’s mother, Lucy, tells us that the revival which led her to join the church took place after the death of her son, Alvin. Alvin died on November 19, 1823, and following that painful loss Lucy Smith reports that,
about this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest, flocked to the meeting house to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our over-charged feelings (First draft of Lucy Smith’s History, p. 55, LDS Church Archives).
Lucy adds that although her husband would only attend the first meetings, he had no objection to her or the children going or becoming church members . There is plenty of additional evidence that the revival Lucy Smith refers to did occur beginning in the spring of 1824. It was reported in at least a dozen newspapers and religious periodicals (see for example, a letter of George Lane, dated January 25, 1825, in Methodist Magazine 8, [April 1825]:159 and a note in a Palmyra newspaper, the Wayne Sentinel 1 [September 15, 1824]:3).4 Church records from that time period show outstanding increases in membership due to the reception of new converts. The Baptist Church received 94, the Presbyterian 99, while the Methodist work grew by 208. No such revival bringing in great multitudes occurred in 1820 in the Palmyra-Manchester area as Joseph claimed. It is clear from this evidence that the revival Joseph Smith described did not occur in 1820, but in 1824. When Joseph Smith wrote the 1838 version of his history, he arbitrarily moved that revival back four years to 1820 and made it part of a First Vision story that neither his mother nor other close associates had heard of in those early days. (For further details see, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.)
Does a discrepancy of four years cause a major problem for Joseph’s story? It certainly does. Joseph described a 10-year sequence of events that begins with the First Vision and ends with the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830. If this sequence did not start until 1824, there are only six years in which to fit the ten year sequence Joseph claims occurred before the Book of Mormon was printed.
In the story as it appears in Mormon scripture, Joseph says that in 1823, three years after the 1820 First Vision, he was visited by the angel Moroni. Moroni tells Joseph about the gold plates but says he must wait four years before obtaining them. In 1827 Joseph gets the gold plates and three years later (1830) publishes the Book of Mormon. However, recall that Joseph linked the First Vision to a great religious excitement in the Manchester-Palmyra area. As documented above, we now know that this revival took place, not in 1820, but in 1824. This means that the angel Moroni’s initial visit three years after the First Vision would have to be dated to 1827. When we add the four additional years Joseph said he had to wait to get the plates, he would not even have had them until 1831. But by this time the Book of Mormon was already in print. The 10-year sequence of events which Joseph spells out in his First Vision story simply will not fit into the span of time between 1824 and the 1830 publication date of the Book of Mormon.
How did the story of Mormon origins become so confused? Part of the answer is found in the fact that Joseph Smith himself told the story several different ways.
An Ever-Changing Story
In about 1832, Joseph Smith, began an account of the origin of the Mormon Church (the only one written in his own hand) that is considerably different from the official First Vision story he dictated some six years later. This 1832 account, which has been referred to as Joseph’s strange account, was never finished and for many years remained inaccessible to the public. It was published in BYU Studies, Spring 1969, pp. 278ff, and is also included in Dean C. Jessee’s The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984, pp. 14ff).
In this version Joseph presented himself as a boy who, between the ages of twelve and fifteen, was a committed and perceptive reader of the Bible. He claimed that it was his study of the Scriptures which led him to understand that all the denominations were wrong. He wrote:
by searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament (Personal Writings, p. 5).
Six years later, when Joseph set forth his official First Vision account, he changed his story and no longer claimed his personal Bible study led him to the conclusion that all churches were wrong. Instead, he said that the Father and the Son told him that all the churches were wrong and he must join none of them. (Ironically, Mormon historians have documented the fact that Joseph Smith joined a Methodist church class in 1828, which would seem to constitute a direct violation of the claimed divine command “to join none of them.”5 He claimed to be surprised by this announcement, for he added parenthetically, “at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.” Yet, in stating this, Joseph contradicted himself, for a few paragraphs earlier in this same account he recorded: “I often said to myself . . . Who of all these parties are right; or are they all wrong together?” The statement — “it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong” — appears in the original manuscript (see BYU Studies cited previously, p. 290), and in the first (1851) edition of the Pearl of Great Price. This phrase, which contradicts Joseph’s earlier statement, was edited out of later editions of LDS scriptures until sometime after 1980, when it was inserted back into English language editions of the PGP. It was also omitted from some foreign language editions, including Spanish and Portuguese, until sometime after 1989 when it was inserted in those as well.
Even without this contradiction the 1838 official account conflicts with the 1832 version. In the 1832 account it is Joseph’s Bible reading that stirs him to seek God, while in the 1838 story it is a (non-existent 1820) Palmyra-area revival that motivates him.
In the 1832 version Joseph only mentions the appearance of Christ, while in the 1838 rendition he claims both the Father and the Son appeared. In the 1832 account he already knows all the churches are wrong, while in the 1838 story he says it never occurred to him that all were wrong until the two deities informed him of this fact.
Joseph’s mother, likewise, knew nothing of a vision of the Father and the Son in the Sacred Grove. In her unpublished account she traces the origin of Mormonism to a bedroom visit by an angel. Joseph at the time had been pondering which of all the churches were the true one. The angel told him “there is not a true church on Earth, No, not one” (First draft of Lucy Smith’s History, p. 46, LDS Church Archives).
Still another version of the First Vision was published in 1834-35 in the periodical, Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate (Vol. 1, pp. 42, 78). This account was written by LDS leader Oliver Cowdery with the help of Joseph Smith. It tells how a revival in 1823 caused 17-year-old Joseph Smith 6 to be stirred up on the subject of religion. According to Cowdery, Joseph desired to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion (p. 78). He also prayed if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him and a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven (Ibid., 78, 79). According to this account, an angel (not a deity) appeared in Joseph’s bedroom to tell him his sins were forgiven.
The conflicts produced by this account are numerous. First, the date of the revival is given as 1823, instead of 1820. Second, if Joseph had already had a vision of the Father and the Son in 1820, why did he need to pray in 1823 about whether or not a Supreme being existed? Third, when the revival prompts him to pray, the personage that appears is an angel, not the Father or Son. Fourth, the message of the angel is one of forgiveness of sins, rather than an announcement that all the churches were wrong.
These widely divergent accounts raise serious questions about the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s First Vision story. Different people may have varying views of the same event, but when one person tells contradictory stories about the same event, we are justified in questioning both the person and the truthfulness of the story.
Persecution Or Acceptance?
Today’s First Vision story not only runs into trouble with the historically verified date of the Palmyra, New York revival and with Joseph’s earlier accounts of the event, it also conflicts with what we know about his early years in Palmyra. In his official version Joseph Smith claims he was persecuted by all the churches in his area “because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision.” However, this is contradicted by one of Joseph’s associates at the time. Orsamus Turner, an apprentice printer in Palmyra until 1822, was in a juvenile debating club with Joseph Smith. He recalled that Joseph, “after catching a spark of Methodism . . . became a very passable exhorter in evening meetings” (History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, 1851, p. 214). Thus, instead of being opposed and persecuted as his 1838 account claims, young Joseph was welcomed and allowed to exhort during the Methodist’s evening preaching. This point is supported by Brigham Young University historian and LDS bishop, James B. Allen. Allen found virtually nothing to support Joseph’s claim that he told the First Vision story immediately after it happened in 1820, and suffered persecution as a result, or even that Joseph was telling the story ten years later:
There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it. Not even in his own history did Joseph Smith mention being criticized in this period for telling the story of the First Vision (“The Significance of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Thought”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p. 30).
Conclusion
From all available lines of evidence, therefore, Joseph’s 1838 official rendition of his First Vision story appears to be myth not history:
There was no revival anywhere in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area in 1820.
The events as told by Joseph Smith will not fit into the time period between the 1824 revival and the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon.
Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
In his 1832 account Joseph said it was by personal Bible study that he determined all the churches were apostate, while in his 1838 account he said it “never entered into my heart that all were wrong.”
In his 1832 version Joseph claimed to see only a vision of Christ and in his 1835 version Joseph told of the visit of an angel, while in the 1838 story the message came from the Father and the Son.
No one knew of today’s version of the First Vision until after Joseph dictated it in 1838, and no published source mentions it until 1842 (Ibid., pp. 30ff).
The conflicts and contradictions brought to light by the preceding historical evidence demonstrate that the First Vision story, as presented by the Mormon church today, must be regarded as the invention of Joseph Smith’s highly imaginative mind. The historical facts and Joseph’s own words discredit it.
— Wesley P. Walters
NOTES
1 Brigham Young University professor James B. Allen, in “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Thought”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p. 29. Allen was an LDS bishop at the time. Return to article.
2 For example, the Mormon church magazine the Ensign, April 1995, featured a six page article on the importance of the First Vision titled, “Oh, How Lovely Was The Morning! : Joseph Smith’s First Prayer and the First Vision.” It gave no clue to the serious conflicts between Joseph’s First Vision story and the historical evidence. Return to article.
3 Palmyra and Manchester were immediately adjoining towns. Return to article.
4 Lane wrote that the Lord s work in Palmyra and vicinity commenced in the spring, and progressed moderately until the time of the quarterly meeting, which was held on the 25th and 26th of September 1824. The Wayne Sentinel article stated: A reformation is going on in this town of great extent. The love of God has been shed abroad in the hearts of many, and the outpouring of the Spirit seems to have taken a strong hold. Return to article.
5 Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma, Emma Hale Smith, University of Illinois Press, 2nd edition, 1994, p. 25. Return to article.
6 On page 78 Cowdery corrects a printing error regarding Joseph’s age. When Cowdery begins the account of Mormon origins on page 42 he mentions the revival and Joseph’s age as being fourteen. In the next issue, when he continues the story on page 78, he dates the revival as being in 1823 and corrects Joseph’s age to seventeen-years-old.
—————————-
Now, I read Jeff Lindsay’s thoughts on prophets and prophecy, which I thought was very good. Prophets are fallible human beings who do make mistakes and act on their human natures just like the rest of us. However, I don’t think you can chalk up the above errors to that. The fact is that Joseph himself first attributed his feeling that the denominations were in error to his Bible study, not the visit of deities in a grove of trees. He also joined a Methodist study in 1828, 8 years after God supposedly warned him not to join any of the churches. And the most damning thing about this is that Joseph evidently did not speak to anyone of his visions. Would a true prophet do that, keep a revelation from God to himself? Did not the prophets of old keep speaking to the Israelites, even when it was clear the people did not want to hear what they had to say? That is what I find disingenous.
Stan: I thought you had a very thoughtful post. We have been over the US and OURS, so I am not going to belabor the point. Let’s just amicably agree to disagree on this doctrine of the Trinity. As for God supposedly changing His mind, I think He knew exactly what He was doing the whole time, and said what He said and did what He did for the benefit of those He was trying to teach lessons to. It does not show that God is capricious or wishy-washy, but that He is patient with those He chooses to bestow His grace upon.
GB: True to my word, I am not going to engage you in a tit-for-tat dialogue. If you want to believe that I am giving up and that you win, then I say bully for you. High-five and chest bump the people closest to you at this moment. For myself, I am saddened that you reduce a religious debate to a competition, but I take to heart the saying, “Never argue with a fool. People may not be able to tell the difference.”
Mike: I am not going to debate Scripture with you either, on those points. The gospel is precious, and is not to be bandied about in a power contest. You believe what you believe. I severely doubt that I will be able to change that, and I don’t really want to. All that I want is for people to look at all sides of the equation and make an informed, intelligent decision on where to focus their quest for spiritual truth. I did hear someone say once, “As for Mormons, remove Joseph Smith from the equation, and what have you got? A bunch of Protestants!” So we do have some common ground, as it seems that young Joseph favored the Methodists, anyway.
Have a good day, my friends…
posted September 4, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Wesley P. Walters’ claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith’s claims that during that year there was “an unusual excitement on the subject of religion…indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it” Joseph Smith—History 1:5
Sadly for the Wesley P. Walters, this claim has not stood up to historical scrutiny.
Joseph states that about 1820 religious excitement had commenced, and the whole district of country was affected by it. The Palmyra newspaper reported many conversions in the “burned-over” district. Joseph often attended these so-called “revivals” and “camp meetings” in the Palmyra area. The Palmyra Register recorded that the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820. (Palmyra Register (Palmyra, NY), 28 July 1820.)
Since they did not have a chapel yet, they would meet in the woods on Vienna Road. (Orsamus Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, and Morris’ Reserve (Rochester, New York: William Alling, 1851), 212–213.)
Pomeroy Tucker (a witness hostile to Joseph Smith) states that “protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations…” (Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton, 1867), 17–18.)
These revivals in 1820 must have helped the Methodists, for they were able to build their first church in Palmyra by 1822, down on Vienna Road where they held their camp meetings. (George W. Cowles, Landmarks of Wayne County (Syracuse, New York: D. Mason & Company, 1895), 194.)
The Zion Episcopal Church was originated in 1823. (Cowles, Landmarks of Wayne County, 194.)
In 1817, the Presbyterians were able to split into an eastern group and a western group. The eastern group used the only actual church building that was in Palmyra in 1820, while the western group assembled in the town hall. (Cowles, Landmarks of Wayne County, 191–192.)
Too common to notice?
Ironically, evidence for the revivals was less prominent than the critics had supposed because they were so common. Newspapers report the novel and unusual; they do not report every-day occurrences.
One report of revival activity only made it into the local newspaper because of a fatality due to alcohol consumption. The paper, in a less politically correct time, pointed out that the deceased was Irish and had died due to alcohol at the Camp-ground outside Palmyra:
Effects of Drunkenness–DIED at the house of Mr. Robert McCollum, in this town, on the 26th inst. James Couser, aged about forty years. The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. McCollum’s house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication. He, with his companion who was also in the same debasing condition, called for supper, which was granted. They both stayed the night–called for breakfast next morning–when notified that it was ready, the deceased was found wrestling with his companion, who he flung with the greatest ease,–he suddenly sunk down upon a bench,–was taken with an epileptic fit, and immediately expired.–It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.
The deceased, who was an Irishman, we understand has left a family, living at Catskill this state. (Palmyra Register (Palmyra, NY), 28 June 1820.)
Mention of “the Camp-ground” did not endear the paper to the local Methodists, who objected to the implication that this (the location of their worship services) was the site of drinking to excess and a place of gathering by the “dissolute part” of the community. An article appeared in the same paper a week later which said:
“Plain Truth” is received. By this communication, as well as by the remarks of some of our neighbors who belong to the Society of Methodists, we perceive that our remarks accompanying the notice of the unhappy death of James Couser, contained in our last, have not been correctly understood. “Plain truth” says, we committed “an error in point of fact,” in saying that Couser “obtained his liquor at the camp-ground.” By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God. Neither did we intend to implicate them by saying that “the intemperate, the dissoute, &c. resort to their meetings.”–And if so we have been understood by any one of that society, we assure them they have altogether mistaken our meaning. (Palmyra Register (Palmyra, NY), 5 July 1820.)
Thus, Joseph’s recollection of religious excitement in Palmyra is confirmed at the very edge of the Spring of 1820; very close to the time when he said he prayed to God about religion. (This episode in the Palmyra Register was noted in Walter A. Norton, “Comparative Images: Mormonism and Contemporary Religions as Seen by Village Newspapermen in Western New York and Northeastern Ohio, 1820-1833″ (Ph.D. Diss., Brigham Young University, 1991), 255. Discussed in footnote 3 by Richard L. Bushman, “Just the Facts Please (Review of Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record by H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters),” FARMS Review of Books 6/2 (1994): 122–133.)
A parallel
Critics often wish to place the revival which Joseph spoke about in 1818. However, even though we know that a revival occurred in Palmyra during June 1818, there is no mention of it in the town paper, despite the fact that it was attended by Robert R. Roberts, who was one of “only three Methodist bishops in North America.” (Discussed and cited on pages 9–10 of D. Michael Quinn, “Joseph Smith’s Experience of a Methodist ‘Camp-Meeting’,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought – Dialogue Paperless: E-Paper #3 (12 July 2006),)
Once again, the commonality of such an event did not ensure that it would get a mention—yet, by the critics’ same argument, this “silence” in the newspaper should mean that the 1818 revival didn’t happen either.
Conflation?
Some critics and armchair scholars have come to the conclusion that some of the revival story elements found in Joseph Smith’s 1838 historical narrative are not really accurate, but rather are representative of a conflation of facts. These people believe that Joseph Smith was actually mixing parts of 1818 and 1824-25 Palmyra revival activities into his storyline about what happened in 1820. In other words, they claim that the Prophet’s narrative is not historically accurate – but not deceptively so.
The problem with the ‘conflation theory’ is two-fold: (1) It can be demonstrated that one of the most important pieces of documentary evidence which is used to support this theory does not actually say what some people think it says – see the FAIRwiki paper called Conflation of 1824-25 revival?. (2) There is plenty of documentary evidence that shows abundant revival activity in and around Palmyra, New York during an 1819-1820 time period. A careful examination of Joseph Smith’s 1838 narrative reveals that three distinct zones of revival activity are being referred to by him and each of these can be confirmed in non-LDS newspapers and ecclesiastical sources. When all of these sources are taken into account the idea of conflation loses most of its inflation.
Conclusion
It is an indisputable fact that there was revival activity in the Palmyra area immediately after the Spring of 1820. And there is also evidence of large-scale revival activity in the area surrounding Palmyra during the same general period when Joseph Smith said that it was taking place. The fact that most critics don’t seem to be aware of this evidence suggests that they would benefit from spending more time in the library.
So once again Chiefs drive by anti-mormon posting gets refuted.
posted September 4, 2007 at 3:34 pm
GB,
Nice cut and paste from the Fairwiki site! Of course all of their information is irrefutable, right? Because you say so, right?
(Sorry; just giving you a taste of your own medicine.)
But it fails to account for this: Joseph Smith himself wrote that his vision occurred in the “second year after our removal to Manchester.” This was after his family had moved to Palmyra, NY from Sharon, VT. They then moved to Manchester, a nearby town. He lists that his sister, Lucy, was among those involved in the move to Manchester. However, records show that Lucy was born in Palmyra on July 18, 1821, and that his vision occurred some two years after that fact! Thus, he would have had his first vision in the grove sometime in 1823, not 1820.
Smith created a paper trail as well. While his account of the First Vision (“1820″) in the D&C lists the Father and Son as present, his own handwritten account (1832) lists only Jesus as present and states that it was in “the 16th year of my age” which would indicate that it took place in 1821 or 1822. In Joseph Smith’s handwritten diary entry for November 9, 1835, he records that he saw two angels, but neither the Father nor the Son. In the “Documentary History of the Church” (Nov 14, 1835) he talks about the “first visitation of angels” as occurring when he was fourteen years old. This would indicate that it occurred in 1819 or 1820. This would conform to the D&C account.
GB, you also did not address Oliver Cowdery’s version of events at all. It states that Smith was seventeen when he had his first vision, and that would place the vision in 1823. Cowdery also says that one of Smith’s petitions was to inquire if a supreme being really existed, which is odd for someone who had a vision of the Father and the Son 3 years earlier. Cowdery’s account was published in the Messenger and Advocate of the LDS church in segments from October 1834 through February 1835. The account was written by Cowdery and edited by Smith himself! And it places the revival in Palmyra and Manchester in 1823, not 1820.
Records exist of the Smith family moves. The Smith family was “warned out” of Norwich, Vermont on March 15, 1816. This common practice prevented the Smiths from laying claim to any charity from the local town to which they had moved less than a year before. Road tax records show that Joseph Smith Senior (Joseph Smith’s father) moved to Palmyra, NY in 1817, and lived there until 1822. The writings of Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, indicate that the rest of the family stayed in Vermont and joined Joseph Smith SR in Palmyra in 1820, a fact again confirmed by road tax records. The Smiths purchased land in Manchester after June of 1820. In 1823 the assessment of the land jumped, confirming improvement of the property and the move of the Smiths to Manchester after June of 1822. The two years Joseph Smith reports as passing between the move to Manchester and the revivals matches this record perfectly.
The story regarding James 1:5 is also included in Cowdery’s account. He states that “Rev. Lane” (George Lane) of the Methodist Church suggested the text to Smith. He also mentions “Rev. Stockton” (Benjamin B. Stockton) of the Presbyterian Church as involved in the revival. Rev. Lane was assigned to the Susquehanna District of Pennsylvania, 150 miles from Palmyra, until his reassignment to Palmyra in July of 1824. The earliest published record of Rev. Stockton in Palmyra is with regard to a wedding Nov 26, 1823, and he wasn’t actually transferred to the area from Skaneateles, N.Y. until Feb 18, 1824.
See, I can cut and paste, too!
posted September 4, 2007 at 3:50 pm
GB and Mike,
Therein lies the rub. I looked at several different non-Mormon AND Mormon sources, and I counted 6 different versions of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision.” These accounts contradict one another on his age when he had the vision (from fourteen to seventeen), the number and identity of personages that visited him (from angels to the Father and Son), the reason he went into the woods to pray, and what message he received from these personages. Additionally, he remembers the exact day he received the lower priesthood, and the exact days he was visited by Moroni and went to the hill Cumorrah (September 22, the Autumnal equinox, a day very prevalent in the occult). Yet he can’t remember the day or year he received the higher priesthood, and he can’t remember the exact day or year that he was visited by God the Father and God the Son! I think those kinds of things would stick in your mind.
Another thing that I find really odd is that when he died, Smith was wearing a silver medallion, one of five artifacts that the Smith family descendants have kept, which also include 3 strange parchments and a dagger owned by Hyrum. This “silver medallion” was owned by Smith, and he carried it on his person at the time of his murder in Carthage jail. It was identified to be a talisman. It is inscribed front and back with the magic square and sigil of Jupiter, the astrological force associated with the year of Joseph Smith’s birth. A strange thing for a prophet of the living God to be carrying around on his person.
Anyway, there you have it. Again, if you take Smith out of the equation, you would be Protestants. Welcome to the faith!
posted September 4, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Chief,
So again you post more stuff with no references. Why is that?
posted September 4, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Chief said:
“Another thing that I find really odd is that when he died, Smith was wearing a silver medallion, one of five artifacts that the Smith family descendants have kept, which also include 3 strange parchments and a dagger owned by Hyrum. This “silver medallion” was owned by Smith, and he carried it on his person at the time of his murder in Carthage jail. It was identified to be a talisman. It is inscribed front and back with the magic square and sigil of Jupiter, the astrological force associated with the year of Joseph Smith’s birth. A strange thing for a prophet of the living God to be carrying around on his person.”
LOL, this is one is so old, and so wrong, I am surprised it’s still circulating. Chief, you should know better than to believe those anti-Mormon sites.
Here is an itemized list of the items found on the dead prophets person:
“Received, Nauvoo, Illinois, July 2, 1844, of James W. Woods, one hundred and thirty- five dollars and fifty cents in gold and silver and receipt for shroud, one gold finger ring, one gold pen and pencil case, one penknife, one pair of tweezers, one silk and one leather purse, one small pocket wallet containing a note of John P. Green for $50, and a receipt of Heber C. Kimball for a note of hand on Ellen M. Saunders for one thousand dollars, as the property of Joseph Smith. – Emma Smith.”
No mention of any “silver medallion”. Sorry, Chief, you are simply wrong.
Read this: http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/talis.html
posted September 4, 2007 at 5:34 pm
GB,
Because I can!
Do you really want or need to see them, GB? I will gladly list them if that is what you really desire. But I suspect you already know the answers to the questions I posed, deep down. Smith is no more a prophet than Sun Myung-Moon. He can’t even make up his mind who visited him and when. You know the truth, and it isn’t setting you free, it’s keeping you a prisoner.
You can find the artifacts in the Smith family history, released just a decade ago. You can find the relevant criteria about the Smith family moves in the tax records. You can find the 6+ contradictions about Smith’s vision in his own journals, the journals of his contemporaries, and in your own church records. Non-Mormons and anti-Mormons didn’t make any of that stuff up; Smith did it to himself, but it has been tried to be kept quiet for these many years.
GB, some of the cites were in my 2nd to last posting above. All of the others are saved in the history of my computer, if that is what you really want. But the big question is whether Joseph Smith is a true prophet or not. There is a lot of information, just recently available in the last 10-15 years or so, about the life of Smith, and the people he associated with and learned from.
He was arrested in 1826 for “glass-looking”, using his “seer stone” to try and find buried treasure. The treasure digging activities also had involved magical rituals, and it is likely Joseph Smith was cognizant of at least the rudiments of ceremonial magic during his adolescent years. A possible occult mentor to the young Smith has also been identified–a physician named Dr. Luman Walter. Walter was a distant cousin of Smith’s future wife and a member of the circle associated with Smith’s early treasure quests. By contemporary reports he was not only a physician, but a magician and mesmerist who had traveled extensively in Europe to obtain “profound learning”–probably including knowledge of alchemy, Paracelcian medicine, and hermetic lore. Other pieces of evidence added to the picture. Three very curious parchments and a dagger owned by Joseph Smith’s brother, Hyrum, have been careful preserved by his descendants as sacred relics, handed down from eldest son to eldest son after his death. Family tradition maintained they were religious objects somehow used by Hyrum and Joseph. When finally allowed scrutiny by individuals outside the family, it was recognized they were the implements of a ceremonial magician.[1]
Smith was also very big into Freemasonry; while ceremonial magic was a virtually unknown–or at least, little documented–element in Mormonism as encountered by Joseph’s followers, other occult aspects in his religion were openly evident. The most obvious was its irregular Masonic connections. In 1842, two years before his death, Joseph had embraced Masonry. But long before his own initiation as a Mason in Nauvoo, he had traveled in company with Masons–a society which included, among other prominent disciples, Brigham Young. His earliest connection with the Craft probably came with his brother (and close life-long companion) Hyrum’s initiation as a Mason around 1826, just shortly before Joseph began work on the Book of Mormon.6
Sometime before 1826, Joseph may even have had contact with the historically important Masonic figure, Capt. William Morgan. Morgan published the first American authored exposé of Masonic rites at Batavia, New York in 1826; his disappearance (and assumed murder) just before the book’s printing was widely judged an act of Masonic vengeance and sparked a national wave of fierce anti-Masonic activity. Given their close geographic proximity–they lived about twelve miles apart–it is quite possible Morgan and Smith met; one nineteenth century Masonic historian even suggested that Smith influenced Morgan.
Interestingly, in 1834 the widow of William Morgan, Lucinda, converted to Mormonism along with her second husband, George Washington Harris. Harris was also a Mason and former associate of William Morgan. Joseph Smith became closely acquainted with George and Lucinda around 1836, and sometime thereafter he entered into an intimate relationship with Lucinda. Eventually Lucinda became one of his ritually wed “spiritual wives”–a relationship which fully evolved despite her still being married to Harris.
The Prophet’s intercourse with Masonry after 1841 became extremely complex. In June of 1841, efforts to establish a Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo began, and a few months later a dispensation for the Lodge was granted. On March 15, 1842 the lodge was installed, and that evening Joseph Smith was initiated. The next day he was passed and raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason. Two days later Smith organize a “Female Relief Society”, perhaps intending it to be a Masonic auxiliary, or the beginning of an “adoptive”, androgynous new Mormon Masonry. Eventually ever officer of the Female Relief Society also became a spiritual wife and consort of Joseph’s, with his first wife Emma acting as president of the Society (a situation understandably complicated by the fact that Emma did not completely understand Joseph’s relationship with the other women).
These last three years before his murder in 1844 were unquestionably the most creative period in a uniquely creative life. Shortly after his Masonic initiations, Smith began formulating the rituals that would be instituted in his own Mormon Temple, then still under early phases of construction in Nauvoo. Six weeks later a first version of this “endowment” (as the ritual was subsequently called) was given by Joseph to a “Holy Order” of nine disciples, all of whom were Master Masons. Many elements of the “endowment” ritual directly paralleled Masonic ceremony, a fact plainly evident to participants. Smith explained to his followers that Masonry was a remnant–even if somewhat corrupted–of the ancient priesthood God had commissioned him to restore in its fullness. In turn, essentially every prominent male figure in the Mormon Church who was present as an adult in Nauvoo became a Master Mason.[2]
Another unusual element entered the matrix of Smith’s creativity around this time. From his associations with ceremonial magic and then Masonry, Smith had almost certainly heard of “Cabala”. But in 1841 a Jew raised in the Polish borderlands of Prussia, educated at the University of Berlin, and familiar with Kabbalah, joined the Mormon church, migrated to Nauvoo, and there became Smith’s frequent companion and tutor in Hebrew. Documentation has recently come to light suggesting this individual, Alexander Neibaur, not only knew Kabbalah, but probably possessed in Nauvoo a copy of its classic text, the Zohar. Joseph likely became familiar with the Zohar while under the tutelage of Neibaur. Indeed, it appears Smith’s April 7, 1844 public declaration of a plurality of Gods was supported by an exegesis on the first Hebrew words of Genesis (Bereshith bara Elohim) drawn from opening section of the Zohar.7
During the period after 1841, Joseph introduced the practice of plural “celestial marriage”–what later evolved into Mormon polygamy in Utah–to a small group of his most trusted followers. In this era not only men, but a few women–like Lucinda–secretly took a “plural” spouse. The sacred wedding ritualized by Smith was a transformative union that anointed men and women to become “priests and priestesses”, “kings and queens”, and then ultimately Goddess and God–the dual creative substance of Divinity in eternal, tantric intercourse. The ceremony was intended to be performed in the holiest precincts of his new Temple. By late 1843 Joseph revealed several ritual extensions to the “endowment”, all ultimately incorporated into Mormon Temple ceremony. This legacy of mysterious initatory rituals revealed by Joseph Smith between 1842 and 1844 remains little altered as the sacred core of Mormonism.
Fifty years later, at the end of the nineteenth century, leaders of the Utah church would still occasionally state in private that the Mormon temple ritual embodied “true Masonry”–a fact unknown to most modern Mormons. But then, of course, almost all of this history is unknown to the average modern Mormon. Even well-educated “Latter-day Saints” today seldom understand the origins of the compass and square embroidered upon the breasts of the ritual garment worn by temple initiates. The relationship of these temple rituals’ development with Joseph Smith’s occult vision and the concurrent introduction of Masonry in Nauvoo is now, however, becoming the subject of intense renewed interest. [3]
NOTES
[1] – Smith’s associations with occult traditions in early America, including extensive documentation of events discuss here, are comprehensively detailied in D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987). For a interpretive reading of this history see Lance S. Owens, “Joseph Smith Kabbalah: The Occult Connection”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27 (Fall 1994): 117-194.
[2] – Joseph Smith’s and his religion’s interactions with the Masonic tradition are fully documented in Michael W. Homer, “‘Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry’: The Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27 (Fall 1994): 1-113.
[3] – Owens, 178-84.
posted September 4, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Chief: GB, you also did not address Oliver Cowdery’s . . . .
GB: I posted enough to clearly show that Wesley P. Walters’ research and scholarship is shoddy and sloppy and that his anti-mormon agenda takes precedent over the truth. I don’t need to waste more time on anything he has published.
posted September 4, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Chief: [1] – Smith’s associations with occult traditions in early America, including extensive documentation of events discuss here, are comprehensively detailied in D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987).
GB: I have not checked every reference in Quinn’s book, but every reference that I have checked has been inaccurate in some way. In some cases Quinn has misinterpreted the source. In some cases he proof texts the quotation, and a fuller reading of the text undermines his case. And sometimes he is just plain wrong.
— John Gee, “Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, by D. Michael Quinn,” FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 185–224.
So Quinn is not a reliable source either. Why don’t you use authors whose work hasn’t been impeached?
posted September 4, 2007 at 10:51 pm
GB,
You still have not explained the discrepancy in Smith’s own testimonies about his first vision:
-He first said he was sixteen, then it was fourteen when the D&C came out in 1835. Cowdery said he was seventeen.
-He stated that the vision happened during the second year after they moved to Manchester. His sister Lucy was alive during that move, and she was born in July of 1821. Then, in 1835, the vision happened in 1820, which would have been impossible given the moves the family made.
-In his first written record of the vision, there were no angels or visitations. Then, it was Jesus alone, then there were numerous angels, and finally, in 1835, it was God and Jesus who appeared to Smith.
These, and numerous other discrepancies, impugnes the validity of Smith’s testimony.
Similarly, you did not deal with the fact that Joseph attempted to join the Methodist church in 1828, when supposedly during the first vision in 1820 he had been told to join none of them, because their creeds were an abomination to the Lord and all of their professors were corrupt. Joseph, in his personal memoirs, stated that he was under intense persecution right away after having his vision, when records of the time show he probably did not tell anyone of his vision outside of his close family and friends, and that when he joined a Methodist study group, he was allowed to speak freely. He came under persecution later, when the more peculiar doctrines he came up with became known.
posted September 4, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Also, GB, you might have read the review of the first edition of Quinn’s work. He has published a second edition, this time with extensive footnotes and a preface that addresses all of the FARMs claims. Pretty good reading.
posted September 5, 2007 at 2:54 am
Chief,
Do you know how tiring it gets answering the same tired garbage by critics of the LDS Church who somehow think they are the first ones to bring it to our attention?
This wopuld be humorous if it weren’t so predictable. I’ve been on these and similar blogs for nearly a year now and they all follow the same pattern.
I have answered every one of these points on at least three occasions.
elsewhere.
When critcs of the Church get frustrated, they begin to try the “shotgun approach” if you fire both barrells full of tripe you figure maybe soemthing will stick and Mormons will get tired of defending their religion.
I really don’t want to post full articles because I figure the people who are interseted will go to the links I mention, but half the time when I list links my comments are “held for review by the blog owner”.
posted September 5, 2007 at 3:29 am
Chief:
Smith is no more a prophet than Sun Myung-Moon. He can’t even make up his mind who visited him and when. You know the truth, and it isn’t setting you free, it’s keeping you a prisoner.
Mike Bennion:
Sir, cease this now! You are inpugning the character of one of the finest men who ever lived. The reason that I have a love for and reverence of Jesus Christ is because of the knowledge and testimony, that I recieved as a result of the doctrines and scripture revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I DO know the truth. I know it with every fiber of my being. I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of the God of Heaven. I know it as I know that I live. I know that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. I know it came from a genuine record of people who lived on this continent. This is not conjecture or wishful thinking. This is rock hard diamond truth. I would no more deny this truth then I would deny my Savior Jesus Christ.
If you do not wish to believe this that is your privilege. But do not blacken the name of Joseph Smith any longer in my hearing. That man communed with Jehovah.
I have read all your posts. I have read all the links to various critics of my faith. I have found responses to every one of these assertions, that answer any doubts I might have had to my satisfaction.
These are Joseph’s words:
Joseph Smith History 1:24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not edeny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.
President George Albert Smith observed: “Many have belittled Joseph Smith, but those who have will be forgotten in the remains of mother earth, and the odor of their infamy will ever be with them, but honor, majesty, and fidelity to God, exemplified by Joseph Smith and attached to his name, will never die” (cited by Harold B. Lee in Ensign, Jan. 1974, p. 126).
Chief, I am your friend, I will continue to pray for your wife and for you. But I will not stay silent about this thing which I know to be of God. Truth is truth, and all your quotes will never change it.
God has told me some things about you Chief. Stop kicking against the pricks. You may one day find yourself in the position of Saul on the road to Damascus.
posted September 5, 2007 at 4:38 pm
This is one of many things that makes me very seriously doubt the Mormon religion.
The Garments of the Holy Priesthood
Following the washing and anointing ceremonies in the LDS temple ceremony, the patron is then assisted in putting on the “Garment of the Holy Priesthood.” Originally this garment closely resembled a pair of long underwear and was only available in a one-piece style. Today, however; some temple Mormons choose to wear a modified two-piece version. Unique to this garment are markings sewn into them which are similar to those used in Freemasonry. Over the right breast is a buttonhole which resembles a “square” (looks like a backward L); over the left breast is a “compass” (resembling a capital V). Sewn into the abdomen and knee area is another marking which looks like an ordinary button-hole.
During their pre-endowment instructions, participants are told that if they are true and faithful to the covenants they will make in the ceremony, their “Garment of the Holy Priesthood “will be a shield, and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer until you have finished your work here on earth.” Temple Mormons are also told that this garment must be worn throughout their lives and represents the garment given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.
Stories of the sacred garment offering protection have long been a part of Mormon folklore. If true, it would seem that wearing their garments would be the soldier’s best friend against harm during war. Yet, the LDS Church provides no proof that garment-wearing soldiers all escaped death or injury during war-time conflict. Are we to believe that garment-wearing Mormons are never injured or killed in traffic accidents? Of course the Mormon can always claim that an injury “could have been worse” or that death was allowed because “their work on earth was done.” Such answers, however, provide no environment to actually prove if the garments played any role whatsoever.
When he appeared in an April 1996 episode of “60 Minutes,” San Francisco 49er quarterback Steve Young told interviewer Mike Wallace that he chose not to wear his garments when on the playing field. Some might think that in playing such a dangerous position Mr. Young would best be served by putting them on (especially in light of his injury-plagued 1996 season). Bill Marriott, on the other hand, told Mike Wallace that the garments do in fact offer protection. The owner of the Marriott hotel chain then related a fantastic story how, when he was in a fiery boating accident, his garments protected him from being burned.
While the Bible tells the believer to have his “loins girt about with truth” and to put on the “breastplate of righteousness,” such metaphorical language never implies Christians are to place their trust in actual physical objects. The idea of protective undergarments falls into the same category as the proverbial rabbit’s foot or talisman. It is of pagan origin and has no biblical justification.
posted September 5, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Javden,
Just another copy and paste hit piece. You didn’t even give Bill McKeever credit. Bill McKeever is a well known anti-mormon, who like Walters and Quinn, sacrifices truth on the alter of the anti-mormon agenda. His scholarship is also shoddy and sloppy.
You should use reliable sources if you are going to attack someones religion.
Richard Mouw recently posted this;
“I once heard an evangelical leader speak out against a certain group with whom we evangelicals have significant disagreements. I happened to have studied this group’s teachings in considerable detail, so I listened very carefully to how he made his case against them. Much of what he said was on target, but at one point he seriously misrepresented what the group believed.
“Later I approached him privately. I told him that I admired his effort to warn his fellow Christians against the group’s false teachings. But on one key point he was attributing to them something they had explicity denied teaching. There is enough bad stuff to criticize in what the group believed, I said, without accusing them of something that is not really a part of their system.
“The leader responded angrily: “You intellectuals have the luxury of making all of these nice distinctions! But I don’t have time for all your polite stuff! My job is to warn God’s people against false teachers. These folks are false teachers and they don’t deserve to be treated fairly!” He had a sneer on his face when he said that last word, “fairly.”
“This leader had adopted an anything goes strategy in opposing a group he disagrees with. When you think about it, though, there is something very strange about that approach. We want to oppose false teachers because they do not teach things that are true. But if in our attempts to defeat them we play fast and loose with the truth, by attributing to them things that they don’t in fact teach and if we don’t really care whether we have it exactly right or not then we have become false teachers: teachers of untruths!
“I suggest this as a rule of thumb: focus on false teachings rather than on false teachers. When we concentrate on opposing false teachers we tend to think about defeating people which can lead to all kinds of dangers. When we concentrate on the careful examination of false teachings we are more aware of the need to speak truthfully.
“We evangelicals make much of the importance of the Ten Commandments for public morality. I have no complaints about that. The Ten Commandments are the fundamental outline of how God wants human beings to live. I don’t know that we can enforce these Commandments in our public life today in some legal sense. Not every sin ought tto be made illegal. But when we talk about what makes a society go bad we do well to focus on the Ten Commandments. Even if we cannot back them up by laws, we can certainly use them in our efforts to witness to others about how the Creator wants people to behave.
“Here is something to keep in mind, though. One of those Commandments tells us that God does not like it when we bear false witness to our neighbors. G.K. Chesterton put it nicely when he wrote: “Idolatry is committed not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils.” God is not honored when we are unfair to people with whom we disagree.”
posted September 5, 2007 at 6:42 pm
GB and Mike,
I did a lot of reading last night. In fact, I was up until after 2:00 in the morning, just reading. I think I may owe you guys an apology. I did a lot of reading about Joseph Smith, from a lot of different people’s perspectives, and I may have done him a disservice. He was a very complex individual, and it’s hard to get a read on just what was going on in his mind, but the testimonies of other people seem to indicate that he was a good, moral man. Not a perfect man, but he seemed to hold true to what he believed to be the truth. I apologize if I have offended you in my diatribes against him.
I am an evangelical, and I still do not believe in a lot of things that he espoused. He and John Taylor swore that monogamy was the official teaching of the church while they were secretly practicing polygamy. That bothers me. He brought a lot of freemason rites, symbolism, and rituals into the church. That bothers me. And there are other things that he taught that I absolutely do not agree with, and I have serious problems with Brigham Young and the things he said and taught. But I am not going to focus on them any longer. Enough has been said, and people can do the research themselves.
Have a good night, my friends, and God bless you and yours…
posted September 5, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Why did the Mormon church change the wording of the endowment ceremony in 1990?
Could it possibly be that too many people were starting to see that Mormonism is a cult, and the Mormon church was trying to change that image
If need be I will post the endowment ceremony on this forum, in fact I just might do that later tonight.
posted September 5, 2007 at 7:44 pm
GB
You say:”Here is something to keep in mind, though. One of those Commandments tells us that God does not like it when we bear false witness to our neighbors. G.K. Chesterton put it nicely when he wrote: “Idolatry is committed not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils.” God is not honored when we are unfair to people with whom we disagree.”
I could say the same thing about you, in fact I think I am right now!
posted September 5, 2007 at 10:50 pm
As I promised
THE ENDOWMENT
The endowment ceremony, unlike baptisms, takes several hours to complete. Only adult Mormons in very good standing are allowed to participate.
The endowment ceremony is a kind of initiation rite, consisting of dramatization, instruction, passwords, oaths, and examinations. It consists of two parts: a preliminary “washing and anointing” ceremony, and the endowment itself. The first time a Mormon goes through the endowment ceremony, it is for himself (or herself), and he participates in both parts. When being endowed for the dead, it is now customary that one person acts as proxy for the dead person’s washing and anointing, but another person, perhaps even on a different day, for the rest of the ceremony. Otherwise, the only difference in the ceremony for the living and for the dead is the insertion of the phrase “for and in behalf of N. N., who is dead” at appropriate times in the proxy ceremony.
The washing and anointing ceremony is an individual ritual, but the second part is a group ritual; that is, a group of Mormons (a “company”) goes through the ceremony at the same time together. There may be as many as six or eight “endowment sessions” per day at a busy temple, running from early morning to late in the evening, each with a company of twenty to a hundred people.
Brigham Young, on the occasion of the laying of the cornerstone of the Salt Lake temple, described the importance of the endowment as the key to entrance into the highest degree of heaven:
“Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.” – Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p.315, April 6, 1853
THE ENDOWMENT: THE WASHING AND ANOINTING
Men and women undergo this part of the endowment in separate but identical areas. Male officiators perform the ritual for the men, and female officiators for the women. The ceremony is the same for members of each sex, with the exception of the ordination to the priesthood, mentioned below. Since women cannot hold the Mormon priesthood, that ordination is not performed for the women. The description here uses a male example.
Each participant (called a “patron”) goes to a locker room and completely disrobes, removing his street clothes and covering the body with a loose white poncho (called a “shield”), which is open on both sides. Taking a towel and a “sacred garment” (which will be discussed later), he proceeds to any one of a number of small booths, where temple workers (“officiators”) are waiting for the individual patrons. Male patrons who are proxies for dead men are first ordained to the Mormon priesthood on behalf of the dead man. The ordination is performed by two temple workers who lay their hands on the patron’s head and pronounce a short ordination formula. The patron enters the booth, and receives the washing, which consists of a token wetting of each part of the body by the officiator, reaching underneath the shield, accompanied by a set blessing to the effect that that body part will function properly. The head, eyes, nose, neck, shoulders, arms, loins, legs, feet, etc. are all washed and blessed. The two officiators then place their hands upon the head of the patron and with a short prayer “seal” the washing upon him, thus “cleansing” him from the “sins of this generation.”
The anointing follows immediately, and is identical with the washing, except that each body part is “anointed,” that is, touched with a small amount of olive oil. The anointing is also sealed upon him.
The officiators then clothe the patron in the “garment of the Holy Priesthood” which the patron has brought. This is a plain white undergarment with four small symbolic marks sewn into it, at the right knee, the navel and each nipple. The patron is instructed that the garment represents the covering which God gave Adam and Eve to clothe their nakedness, and that the patron must wear such a garment at all times from then onward. (Click here for more on the garment). For a photograph of a doll dressed in the garment, with close-ups of the markings, click here. For a photograph of a man and woman wearing only the garments, click here.
At this point the patron is also given a “new name,” which will be used as a password later in the ceremony, and which he is told will also be needed at the entrance to heaven. The name is usually a name of some character from the Bible or the Book of Mormon. (Few Mormons are aware that on any given day, every temple patron of the same sex receives the same new name.
UPDATE! (January 2005) In the first major change in the endowment ordinances in fifteen years, church authorities on January 18, 2005, revised the washing and anointing ordinances. Patrons now put on the garment themselves in the locker room, then don a white smock before proceeding to the washing booth. Only the head, hands and feet are exposed. The washing now consists of a single wetting with water of a spot on the forehead, and the anointing is a single dab of oil on the forehead. No other parts of the body are touched by the officiators, as was the case previously. The patron is told that he has been “symbolically” washed and anointed, and that his temple garment is now “authorized.”
The patron then goes back to the locker, removes the poncho, and dresses for the communal part of the endowment in plain white clothing, with the garment underneath. For men: trousers, belt, shirt, necktie, socks, and slippers or moccasins. For women: long-sleeved dress, stockings, and slippers or moccasins.
The patron carries the remaining ritual clothing in a small bag or packet, and proceeds to a waiting area until everyone in the company is ready to move into the large auditorium room where the company will be seated (men on the right side of the room, women on the left) for the start of the session. These clothing articles are: a small green apron, usually embroidered with a leaf motif, the “robe,” which is actually just a long, pleated toga-like piece of white cloth to be draped over one shoulder, and the “sash,” a narrow piece of white cloth long enough to be wrapped around the waist and tied in a bow at the side. Men also have a white cap, resembling a small chef’s hat, and women have a veil which can either hang behind the head or be brought to the front to cover the face.
Since deceased Mormons are buried in their temple clothing, anyone can see the actual clothing at a Mormon funeral or viewing of the deceased. (The cap or veil is usually placed on the deceased’s head immediately before the final closing of the coffin.)
THE ENDOWMENT: THE DRAMA, LAWS, AND COVENANTS
The endowment ritual has undergone a number of major revisions in the 150 years since it was first introduced by Joseph Smith. The most drastic revision was in 1990, when major parts of the earlier forms of the endowment were removed, perhaps because even Mormons found them too offensive. The following description is based on the version as this writer experienced it, before the 1990 revisions, with comments about the 1990 revisions.
This article will merely summarize very briefly the essentials of the endowment ceremony.
The ritual is a dramatization of the Mormon interpretation of the creation and history of the world, emphasizing the Creation, the Fall of Adam, the expulsion from the Garden, and God’s sending to humanity the message of salvation by means of the messengers Peter, James and John. The main characters in this ritual drama are God the Father (Elohim), Jehovah, and Michael (who later appears as Adam), Eve, Lucifer, Peter, James and John. Until 1990 a Christian Minister also appeared in a derogatory role, as a paid servant of Lucifer. Jesus does not appear in the drama, except as Jehovah, one of the creators of the world. No principles of doctrine are presented that an attentive Mormon has not already learned from his pre-endowment studies of Mormonism, other than perhaps the doctrine that his ultimate celestial exaltation will depend on his knowing the signs, tokens (handclasps) and passwords which he will learn during the endowment ritual.
Since the 1960s much of the dramatic part of the presentation has been presented by using motion pictures. In other words, temples nowadays are movie theaters, showing the same film, over and over. Prior to the introduction of the use of film, the dramatization was performed by temple workers. The dramatic presentations were not theatrical, but ritual. No attempt was made at verisimilitude or real acting. All characters wore white suits or dresses (except for Lucifer, who wore a black suit and a Masonic ceremonial apron, and the Christian minister, who wore ordinary street clothes).
In the older temples, when the dramatization was “live,” the company moved from room to room, symbolic of their progression in receiving the Mormon gospel. The creation was presented in the Creation Room, the Adam and Eve story in the Garden Room, man’s condition after the fall and his temptations by false doctrine in the Lone and Dreary World Room, and, after mankind receives the True Gospel, in the Telestial Room, from which passage through the Veil of the temple (described below) leads to the Celestial Room. Each room in the older temples was decorated with appropriate murals. Each room (except for the Creation Room) also contained a small altar.
In the modern temples the company remains in the same room, which is merely a motion-picture projection room, with an altar.
All altars in the temple are a simple rectangular box, with a low padded step or ledge, for kneeling. The top of the altar, at elbow height for one kneeling at the altar, is also padded.
At appropriate places in the dramatization, the patrons put on part of the ritual clothing over their other clothing. Immediately after the fall, for example, the patrons put on the green apron, representing Adam’s attempt to cover his nakedness with fig leaves. Later in the ritual, they add the robe, sash and cap or veil, symbolic of the receiving of the priesthood by mankind. (Ironically, although Mormon women don the “robes of the holy priesthood” during the endowment ritual, women are never ordained to the Mormon priesthood. Most Mormon males over the age of twelve are ordained to the priesthood, but no female has ever been ordained.)
At various points during the course of the dramatization, the patrons are required to stand and covenant to obey five all-inclusive laws. These are the Laws of Obedience, Sacrifice, The Gospel, Chastity, and Consecration.
As an example, here is how the Law of Obedience was presented in the version from the 1980s:
ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the law of Obedience to their husbands. Sisters, arise. (Female patrons stand as instructed.)
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husbands, and abide by his counsel in righteousness. Each of you bow your head and say “Yes.”
WOMEN: Yes.
ELOHIM: That will do.
(The female patrons now resume their seats.)
ELOHIM: Brethren, Arise.
(Male patrons stand as instructed.)
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God, and keep his commandants. Each of you bow your head and say “yes”.
MEN: Yes.
In the 1990 revisions this Law was changed so that the woman is not required to “obey” the husband, but to “obey the Law of the Lord, and to hearken unto the counsel of her husband, as her husband hearkens unto the counsel of the Father.”
The Law of Sacrifice is explained as based on the Old and New Testaments. In submitting to this Law, the patrons covenant to “sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God [i.e., the Mormon church].”
The Law of the Gospel requires the patrons to covenant to obey the Gospel (as taught by the Mormon church) and “to avoid all lightmindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed (i.e., the leaders of the Mormon church), the taking of the name of God in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice.”
The Law of Chastity is a covenant to restrict one’s sexual relations to the lawful spouse.
The Law of Consecration requires “that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”
THE ENDOWMENT: TOKENS, SIGNS AND PENALTIES
At various points in the dramatization, in addition to the making of the covenants to keep the various laws, the patrons don the robe, sash and cap/veil – the “robes of the priesthood.” The patrons move through the steps pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood wearing the robe on the left shoulder, then move the robe to the right shoulder for the rituals for the Melchizedek (higher) Priesthood. Each priesthood has two “tokens, signs and penalties” (only three penalties were actually stated, and in 1990 even those three were eliminated), which the patrons are given in sequence as part of their initiation. Each token also has a name which must be learned.
The tokens are special handclasps, with one person “giving” the token and the other person “receiving” it. The signs are positions in which the arms and hands must be held. These tokens and signs are methods of identifying oneself as endowed. Although no Mormon would use this means of identifying himself outside the temple, the implication is that one will be asked to show these signs and tokens for admission to the Celestial Kingdom.
The penalties, which were completely deleted from the ceremony in 1990, are stylized indications of various ways of being killed. It was understood that anyone revealing these signs or tokens was expressing willingness to suffer the corresponding penalty and lose his life. As each token and sign is presented to the company, each patron receives the token from an officiator and the company makes the sign (and, formerly, enacted the execution of the penalty) in unison.
FIRST TOKEN OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD:
The First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood is given by clasping the right hands and placing the joint of the thumb directly over the first knuckle of the other person’s hand.
The name of this token is the New Name that was received in the washing and anointing ceremony.
The sign is made by bringing the right arm to the square, the palm of the hand to the front, the fingers close together, and the thumb extended.
The execution of the Penalty was represented by placing the right thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side.
The officiator in the pre-1990 version, after demonstrating the sign and execution of the penalty, said:
“I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, sign and penalty, and which you will be required to take upon yourselves. If I were receiving my own Endowment today, and had been given the name of “John” as my New Name, I would repeat in my mind these words, after making the sign, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty: I, John, covenant that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.”
The Officiator demonstrated the execution of the penalty while saying the last sentence. The company was then instructed to stand, and while making the sign, recite the oath in unison while executing the penalty. The present-day version is similar, but without stating or demonstrating the penalty.
SECOND TOKEN OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (received with robe on left shoulder):
This Token is given by clasping the right hands and placing the joint of the thumb between the first and second knuckles of the hand.
The name of this token is one’s own first given name if going through the temple for one’s own endowment, or, if going through for the dead, it is the first given name of the dead person.
The sign is made by bringing the right hand in front, with the hand in cupping shape, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm being raised to the square.
The Execution of the Penalty was represented by placing the right hand on the left breast, drawing the hand quickly across the body, and dropping the hands to the sides. The oath was similar to the previous penalty oath.
FIRST TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD, OR SIGN OF THE NAIL (with the robe on the right shoulder):
This token is received by bringing the right hand into this position: the hand vertical, the fingers close together, and the thumb extended; and the person giving the token placing the tip of the forefinger of his right hand in the center of the palm, and the thumb opposite on the back of the hand of the one receiving it. As indicated by its nickname, it represents the nails in Jesus’ palm when he was crucified.
The sign is made by bringing the left hand in front of you with the hand in cupping shape, the left arm forming a square; the right hand is also brought forward, the palm down, the fingers close together, the thumb extended, and the thumb is placed over the left hip. (For a photograph of two Mormon men in their temple robes making the “first sign of the Melchizedek priesthood, click here.)
The penalty was represented by drawing the thumb quickly across the body and dropping the hands to the sides. The oath is similar to the previous oaths.
The name of this token is “the Son”, meaning the Son of God.
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD, THE PATRIARCHAL GRIP, OR SURE SIGN OF THE NAIL
This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers, and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist. The thumbs should be parallel with the fingers.
The sign is made by raising both hands high above the head, and while lowering the hands three times repeating aloud the words: “Pay Lay Ale; Pay Lay Ale; Pay Lay Ale.” The hands are lowered in three distinct movements, one move for each word. [1] Pay–hands above head, [2] Lay–both arms dropped to the square, [3] Ale–both hands lowered to the height of chest.
The words spoken when giving the sign of this token are said to mean “Oh God, hear the words of my mouth!” Since 1990, the original name has been abandoned in favor of the translation. The reason for the change was that Pay Lay Ale in it’s original Hebrew means “marvelous false god”
The name is not given at the time the token is given, but is withheld until the patron is at the veil, at the very end of the endowment (see below).
No specific penalty was given to accompany this sign, but the obligation of secrecy was said to be the same as for the other signs and tokens which had specifically stated penalties.
THE ENDOWMENT: THE TRUE ORDER OF PRAYER
After the company has received all the signs and tokens of the priesthood, they are instructed in the “true order of prayer.” A circle is formed by some members of the company standing around the altar, facing the altar, and alternating by sex if possible. The officiator stands at the altar and leads the circle through all the signs of the priesthood, the last being the sign of the Second Token of the Melchizedek priesthood, the words of which are, “Oh, God! Hear the words of my mouth!”
At this point, the officiator kneels at the altar. The women move their veils so as to cover their faces. The members of the circle join with the Patriarchal Grip, each man with the woman to his left, raising the left arm to the square and resting it on the shoulder or arm of the person to the left. The officiator makes the sign of the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, and, while holding his arms in that position (a shoulder-high elbow rest is conveniently provided for him at the altar, in case he should be inspired by the Spirit to make the prayer overly long), he offers an impromptu prayer. This is the only part of the temple ceremony which is not rigidly according to a script.
As the officiator says each phrase of the prayer, the members of the circle repeat it in unison. The content of the prayer is usually quite ordinary, but always includes prayers for “those people whose names are lying on this altar.” This is the temple “prayer list,” consisting of the names of the sick, the suffering, the doubting, or others who devout Mormons believe would benefit from the extra strength of a true prayer in the temple. Any Mormon may ask that a particular name be added to the prayer list at any temple. The names, written on individual slips of paper, are enclosed in a white pouch which is placed on the altar before the prayer begins.
THE ENDOWMENT: THE CEREMONY AT THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE:
The end of the endowment ceremony comes when the veil of the temple is uncovered and each member of the company is presented individually at the veil to be examined and passed through into the Celestial Room, representing the Celestial Kingdom.
The veil is a large white cloth, hanging from the ceiling and reaching to the floor, separating the room where the previous ceremonies have taken place from the Celestial Room. It represents the separation between the mortal state and the heavenly state, and thus “passing through the veil” is meant to be symbolic of leaving this existence and passing into the presence of God, as represented by the Celestial Room. Until the patrons are ready to “be presented at the Veil,” the Veil is covered with a heavy drape, on a drawstring, similar to a large window drape.
The Veil is actually not a single piece of cloth, but consists of numerous duplicate sections a few feet wide. This allows numerous patrons to be presented at the veil simultaneously so that the entire company can pass quickly through the Veil.
Each section of the veil has the same symbols cut into it (only larger) as are in the garment worn by each patron. These marks are the Mark of the Square, the Mark of the Compass (one over each nipple in the garment, at shoulder height in the veil), the Navel Mark and the Knee Mark. The former two are simple right angles; the latter two are simple straight slits. Each section of the veil is separated from the next by a small post, from which hangs a small mallet.
Each patron is presented by a temple worker at one of the segments of the veil. Other workers, representing “the Lord,” stands unseen on the other side of the veil. The worker standing with the patron taps three times with the mallet, and the following dialogue occurs.
LORD: What is wanted?
WORKER: Adam [Eve], having been true and faithful in all things, desires further light and knowledge, by conversing with the Lord, through the Veil [for and in behalf of N. N., who is dead].
LORD: Present him [her] at the Veil, and his [her] request shall be granted.
(The Lord reaches his hand through the veil and gives the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood through the opening.)
LORD: What is that?
PATRON: The First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood.
LORD: Has it a name?
PATRON: It has.
LORD: Will you give it to me?
PATRON: I will, through the Veil. (The patron gives the New Name).
The Lord continues similarly, through the other tokens, until the last one, for which the patron has not received the name:
(The Lord gives the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood.)
LORD: What is that?
PATRON: The Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Patriarchal Grip, or Sure sign of the Nail.
LORD: Has it a name?
PATRON: It has.
LORD: Will you give it to me?
PATRON: I cannot. I have not yet received it. For this purpose I have come to converse with the Lord through the Veil.
LORD: You shall receive it upon the Five Points of Fellowship through the Veil.
The Lord and the patron, still holding the grip, embrace upon the Five points of Fellowship by placing their left arms through the marks of the compass and square, which are cut through the Veil. The patron’s left arm goes through the mark of the compass, and the Lord’s left arm goes through the mark of the square. The Five Points of Fellowship are: 1) inside of right foot by the side of right foot, 2) knee to knee, 3) breast to breast, 4) hand to back, and 5) mouth to ear.
One of the major changes made in 1990 was the elimination of the “Five Points of Fellowship,” probably because many women objected that they felt uncomfortable embracing “The Lord” so intimately.
LORD: This is the name of the Token–”Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the Priesthood be upon me, and upon my posterity through all generations of time, and throughout all eternity.”
(The Lord then asks the patron to give him the name of the token. If the patron has difficulty remembering it correctly, the temple worker will prompt him.)
(The Lord and patron break the ceremonial embrace, and the temple worker gives another three taps with the mallet.)
LORD: What is wanted?
WORKER: Adam, having conversed with the Lord through the Veil, desires now to enter his presence.
LORD: Let him enter.
(The Veil is now parted and the Lord takes the patron by the right hand, and pulls him gently through the Veil into the Celestial Room.)
The endowment ceremony ends for each patron as he or she passes through the veil. If a man and woman are being married that day, the man goes through the veil first, and then assumes the role of the Lord to bring his bride through the veil.
There is no ritual performed in the Celestial room, which is generally a very large and elaborately furnished sitting room, with sofas, chairs, tables, art work, chandeliers and carpeting. Patrons may rest briefly, relax, visit (in subdued voices) with others. Praying is discouraged. Patrons may also go directly to the locker rooms from the Celestial Room and then leave, or they may have scheduled sealings, which are performed in small Sealing Rooms which open off the Celestial Room. If couples are being married, their wedding party gathers in the Celestial Room to wait for a sealing room to become available.
SEALINGS
Mormons believe that the family relationships – between husband and wife and between parent and child – can be made eternal by the authority of the Mormon priesthood. The ceremonies in which this is done are called “sealings.”
Young Mormons are taught that their goal in choosing a life’s mate should be to select another Mormon who is worthy to be endowed and married in a sealing ceremony in the temple. To marry anyone else, they are taught, would be to sacrifice one’s hopes of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom of heaven, since only those people whose marriages are sealed “for time and all eternity” will be in that highest glory.
Thus, good Mormon couples first get their endowment, and then have their wedding in the temple, in one of the sealing rooms. Since only worthy Mormons can enter the temple, frequently many friends and family members – even parents of the bride and groom – are excluded from witnessing the ceremony, and must wait outside the temple, or in a waiting room at the entrance foyer which is not part of the sacred precincts.
Weddings are scheduled so that a number of them can be performed at the same time, so that sometimes a bride must share her special day with several other brides. If she has not received her own endowment before her wedding day, she and her bridegroom (and their entire wedding party, if worthy) may go through an endowment session before their sealing ceremony. The bride is allowed to wear her special wedding gown during the endowment session, with the apron and other ritual clothing worn over it. Or she may get her own endowment a few days before her wedding day. If the bride and groom have both been previously endowed, then they and their wedding party can proceed directly from the dressing rooms to the sealing room, dressed in the temple clothing.
The actual sealing (wedding) ceremony is very brief. When the wedding party has assembled in the sealing room, the officiator, dressed like all temple officiators in a white suit, instructs the couple to kneel at the altar, facing each other across the altar, and to join hands in the Patriarchal Grip. Simple vows are exchanged, and the officiator pronounces them husband and wife “for time and all eternity.” The exchange of rings is optional, and is not part of the ceremony. During the ceremony there is no music, no flowers, no reading of poetry, no “giving the bride away,” no photographs. For the wording of the ceremony, click here (offsite).
A Mormon couple which has already been married in a civil ceremony may, after a certain waiting period (designed to discourage such civil ceremonies), go to the temple and have their marriage sealed. Any children born already to them can be brought to the temple and sealed to them as their children. Such children are not required to go through a worthiness interview, but are simply brought to the parents directly in the sealing room, dressed in white, when the sealing is scheduled. Children born to a couple already sealed do not have to go through the ceremony; they are considered to be already sealed to their parents automatically, since they are “born under the Covenant” (referring to the “New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage” as described in the revelation on plural wives and celestial marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132.
Sealings for the dead are essentially the same ceremony. They are much more perfunctory, of course. Generally a group of Mormons will gather to “do sealings” in one of the sealing rooms. The officiators have long lists of families of the dead, listing the names of the parents and all children. They will ask the appropriate number of males and females to kneel at the altar, and quickly recite the words which seal the family together, calling out the name of each deceased family member, then mark the family sheet as completed, and call another group to kneel at the altar for another family. Dozens of families of the dead can be sealed in just a few hours.
posted September 5, 2007 at 11:11 pm
To Javden, anti-Mormon,
One of the beautiful blessings of ‘freedom’ earned by the blood of millions, is that even the most vile, and basest of humanity can freely speak their mind; I would protect that right with my life, even the vitriolic dribble coming from your mouth…
There are those persons who seek to trample the sacred, those who, in the words of Elder Boyd K. Packer, “wade the muddy paths of opposition and apostasy. Then without changing their boots, they seek to push open the doors of the temple and stride into those hallowed precincts.”
You are such a person. The Spirit of the Lord is positive, and the wise builder does all in his power to associate himself with those things which edify and enrich. You and your kind however, sow seeds of darkness, doubt and discord. It is easy for readers to discern the source of that which maligns and defames. To you there is nothing sacred, and you rationalize your means by fooling yourself of the end.
Your sort of “Christianity” is no different today than that which butchered thousands in times past, and would continue today if not for the restraints of retribution. So, go on, spread your vile lies and continue to heap coals of righteous indignation upon your head…you and all like you will ultimately give an account of all your thoughts, words, and actions to God and then, save for sincere repentance, Justice will be served…God Bless.
posted September 6, 2007 at 2:08 am
Chief:
I did a lot of reading last night. In fact, I was up until after 2:00 in the morning, just reading. I think I may owe you guys an apology. I did a lot of reading about Joseph Smith, from a lot of different people’s perspectives, and I may have done him a disservice. He was a very complex individual, and it’s hard to get a read on just what was going on in his mind, but the testimonies of other people seem to indicate that he was a good, moral man. Not a perfect man, but he seemed to hold true to what he believed to be the truth. I apologize if I have offended you in my diatribes against him.
Mike Bennion:
Chief, you are a good man. I appreciate your restraint. I have been studying the life of Joseph Smith for over forty years. He never ceases to surprise me. The complexitiy that you spoke of is in the doctrine he taught as well.
It is so simple and yet so profound. It is not the doctrine of a charlatan or a fool. He never claimed perfection for himself or for the work revealed through him. Yet he was faithful and firm in his testimony to the end of his life.
These are his words:
22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, (Jesus Christ) this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by ahim, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
Chief:
I am an evangelical, and I still do not believe in a lot of things that he espoused. He and John Taylor swore that monogamy was the official teaching of the church while they were secretly practicing polygamy. That bothers me. He brought a lot of freemason rites, symbolism, and rituals into the church. That bothers me. And there are other things that he taught that I absolutely do not agree with, and I have serious problems with Brigham Young and the things he said and taught. But I am not going to focus on them any longer. Enough has been said, and people can do the research themselves.
Mike Bennion:
I understand that. I respect your right to disbelieve. I am personally thankful that you allow me the right to know. The things that bother you do not bother me. I have read and studied and pondered and prayed for understanding sufficient that these concerns have been answered to my own satisfaction. I don’t have all the answers, but I have enough to know. You are correct. People can do their own research.
Chief:
Have a good night, my friends, and God bless you and yours…
Mike:
And you as well my friend.
posted September 6, 2007 at 2:28 am
Javden,
You misunderstand many things. The thing you have done here has been done many times before. You think that you are disclosing something secret. It is not secret. It has been revealed before. But all you have done is make a mock of sacred things.
I, on the other hand. Made a covenant with God in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, whom I worship with all my soul, that I would not discuss or reveal these things outside of the Temple. I never have and I never will. Because of this I have kept my promise and my integrity intact. Because I have kept my promise, the Lord has granted me more joy and peace as a result of the temple than I ever expected I could recieve in this life, and eternal promises in the life to come.
Someone like you, who betrays such a trust, is truly a pitiable figure.
You are like the men who crucified the Savior. You may have mocked him, spit in his face, pressed a crown of thorns onto his head, adorned him with a purple robes as a sign of your disrespect as you kneel before him in a parody of worship; you may have beaten him with 40 stripes, save one, and striped him naked, and thrown him down on a beam of wood, and driven nails through his hands and feet; you may have thrust a spear contemptuously into his side, and by all this have thought that you were making him an object of ridicule.
All you have really done is shown your total and abject depravity.
You have not diminished him in the least. Stripped, beaten, naked, nailed to a cross he is a perfect man. He is noble and brave and true.
You are like the man who crucified him afresh.
You are like the kind of man who would show videos of your own private time with your wife, And leer and laugh at something that private and sacred.
I feel no anger for you. I feel a deep, deep sense of sadness, at what you have done to stain your own honor and integrity. Oh, if for your own sake you could call back those words. But they are there and like blood on the ground that cries out against you, they convict you.
One day, God will require an accounting. I pray that at that day you may have had time to repent of this gross and grievous thing that you have done.
posted September 6, 2007 at 2:33 am
Note to the owner of this blog.
If the post concerning the Temple endowwment by Javden is an example of the type of thing that you let through, without “holding for review
than you should be ashamed of yourself.
I would not ever expect another of my posts to ever be “held” based on this example.
posted September 6, 2007 at 6:22 am
Stay True
Hey if I’m going to be labeled anti mormon I might as well do something worthy of being called that right. After all I wouldn’t want anyone to sin by misrepresenting me, as you seem do everyone else who doesn’t agree with the Mormons. You’re welcome to post anything about Christianity that is sacred and secret. You won’t offend me.
Mike
You said:
You are like the kind of man who would show videos of your own private time with your wife, And leer and laugh at something that private and sacred.
What kind of sick person would do something like that.
The truth is Mike your temple ceremonies are not sacred but secret because Mormons don’t want anyone to know that what they do in their temples was never practiced in the Bible. in fact the closest thing resembling Mormon temple practices are occultic rituals.
My question was never answered; Why the change in the endowment ceremony in 1990?
posted September 6, 2007 at 8:37 am
Would anyone like to read the entire script of the Mormon endowment ceremony including it’s 1990 and 2005 revisions?
posted September 6, 2007 at 9:08 am
Javden,
Satan too says, “You’re welcome to post anything about Christianity that is sacred and secret. You won’t offend me.”
I’m sorry to find you unwittingly in league with him.
posted September 6, 2007 at 10:12 am
Javden,
You are not worth the time. I have nothing but contempt for someone who would not respect what is sacred to others. I will not reply to your posts. Chief earlier stated that sometimes the Christian response is silence, as when Christ was brought before Herod.
There are valid reasons which have been posted previosly on this and other sites as to why the endowment was changed. I will be happy to talk to those who are respectful of my religion.
As for you, I will take the old advice:
“Don’t wrestle in the mud with a pig. You will only get dirty and the pig enjoys it.” “Cast not thy pearls before swine.”
posted September 6, 2007 at 10:43 am
Javden,
You have revealed more about your true character than anything else. What you posted is property of the LDS Church that was stolen through deception. So you are trafficking in stolen property and are, as a minimum, an accomplice of the theft after the fact.
An anti-mormon is willing to sacrifice any Christian virtue in their fight against the LDS Church. You have demonstrated such willingness. In so doing, you demonstrate a lack of faith in God’s ability to take care of His own in His own way. You also imply that one cannot contend against the LDS Church without leaving Christian virtue behind. In that respect, I must thank you for strengthening my testimony in the truthfulness of the LDS Church.
However, I must exhort you to speedily repent and return to the principles of true Christian behavior, lest you incur the wrath of the Almighty God of Heaven.
posted September 6, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Stay True
You said :Satan too says, “You’re welcome to post anything about Christianity that is sacred and secret. You won’t offend me.”
Can you tell me where???
posted September 6, 2007 at 12:14 pm
GB,
You say; What you posted is property of the LDS Church that was stolen through deception. So you are trafficking in stolen property and are, as a minimum, an accomplice of the theft after the fact.
Is it copyrighted? I am giving credit to the LDS church I mean they are the ones who came up with it.
I do not view the temple ceremony as sacred, because there is nothing sacred about it. It is a pagan ritual
posted September 6, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Mike,
THE MORMON TEMPLE ENDOWMENT CEREMONY
Note this is the pre 1990 edition
FIRST LECTURER: Brethren and sisters, we welcome you to the temple, and hope you will find joy in serving in the house of the Lord this day. Those of you who are here to receive your own Endowments should have been washed, anointed, and clothed in the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. The ordinances of washing, anointing, and clothing in the Garment of the Holy Priesthood, together with the ordaining in behalf of the deceased brethren were preformed previously for those deceased persons whom you are representing. Each of you should have received a New Name in connection with this company. If any of you have forgotten the New Name, or have not received these ordinances as explained, please stand. (pause)
Please be alert, attentive and refrain from whispering during the presentation of the Endowment. As you are asked to proceed to the Veil, please do so in an orderly manner, row by row, as directed. After passing through the Veil into the Celestial Room, and in other areas in the Temple, if you need to communicate, please whisper, thus helping us maintain the quiet reverence that should prevail in the House of the Lord. We will now proceed with the presentation of the Endowment.
SECOND LECTURER: Brethren, you have been washed and pronounced clean, or that through your faithfulness, you may become clean from the blood and sins of this generation. You have been anointed to become hereafter Kings and Priests unto the Most High God, to rule and reign in the House of Israel forever.
Sisters, you have been washed and anointed to become Queens and Priestesses to your husbands.
Brethren and Sisters, if you are true and faithful, the day will come when you will be chosen, called up, and anointed Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses, whereas you are now anointed only to become such. The realization of these blessings depends upon your faithfulness.
You have had a Garment placed upon you, which you were informed represents the garment given to Adam when he was found naked in the garden of Eden, and which is called the “Garment of the Holy Priesthood.” This you were instructed to wear throughout your life. You were informed that it will be a shield and a protection to you and if you are true and faithful to your covenants.
You have had a New Name given unto you, which you were told never to divulge, nor forget. This New Name is a keyword which you will be required to give at a certain place in the temple today. The Your Endowment is to prepare you for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.
to be continued later.
posted September 6, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Javden,
What exactly is your point? I have to agree with the others on here, in that things that are sacred to people of a particular faith should not be profaned, no matter what the intentions. I personally would not want to do that with Christian principles, either. Remember, Jesus said “do not give to dogs what is sacred.” I think we can have meaningful dialogue without resorting to this level.
I am a Christian, Javden, and I don’t agree with a lot of LDS theology, but I have to respect other people’s rights to believe what they choose. And I for one do not claim to have a full grasp of all knowledge, so you might want to tread a little more carefully in the future. I would not publicly ridicule what Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims hold sacred, and I will not do that with Mormons, either. Please, if you are going to continue to be part of this discussion, do it with more class and respect.
posted September 6, 2007 at 12:28 pm
The temple ceremony is copyrighted, and it is not particularly secret. It has been posted all over the web for anyone to read, but as other posters have said, it is sacred, and as such, Mormons do not discuss it. You have truly fulfilled Christ’s words when he said, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Jesus really had you pegged.
posted September 6, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Javden,
Its copyrighted status is irrelevant, only your actions and intentions are important to your true character. You know it belongs to the LDS Church and you know it was stolen. God will judge you based on these facts not on the copyrighted status of the material.
posted September 6, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Hey Chief; I love you more and more each day as I read your postings. You are in my view a true Christian.
Javden, as of this time I cannot say the same for you. I will not reveal anything of the sacred aspects of the temple ceremony, but I feel that I must at least correct you. First of all, I have worked in the temple for the past ten years. Your statement that “Praying is discouraged.” In the Celestial room is COMPLETELY FALSE. If you are a patron you are encouraged to use the Celestial room for prayer and meditation.
What you may have misunderstood was a directive to the “temple workers” who used the Celestial room for their personal prayers. We were asked not to use the Celestial room for personal prayers but to find other places in the temple to have personal prayer.
Because I know that you are wrong on your prayer statement I also reject your assertion “that Pay Lay Ale in it’s original Hebrew means “marvelous false god””.
I do not know anything about Hebrew, but I do know that we were told that the words (pre 1990) were in the “pure language that Adam used”. Any person who knows anything about the history of languages will tell you that by time alone, ignoring that there was no surviving written record from Adam, no portion of the language that Adam spoke would have survived into Hebrew or any other language.
I do expect a sincere apology.
Stan
posted September 6, 2007 at 3:40 pm
TEMPLE ENDOWMENT CEREMONY CONTINUED
Pre 1990 edition
THE CREATION–FIRST DAY
ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, see: yonder is matter unorganized, go ye down and organize it into a world like unto the worlds that we have hereunto formed. Call your labors the First Day, and bring me word.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done Elohim. Come Michael, let us go down.
MICHAEL: We will go down, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Michael, see: here is matter unorganized. We will organize it into a world like unto worlds that we have heretofore formed. We will call our labors the First Day, and return and report.
MICHAEL: We will return and report our labors on the First Day, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Elohim, we have been down as thou hast commanded, and have organized a world like unto the worlds that we have heretofore formed, and we have called out labors the First Day.
ELOHIM: It is well.
SECOND DAY
ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, go down again. Gather the waters together and cause the dry land to appear. The great waters call ye seas, and the dry land call ye earth. Form mountains and hills, great rivers and small streams, to beautify and give variety to the face of the earth. When you have done this, call your labors the Second Day, bring me word.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim. Come Michael, let us go down.
MICHAEL: We will go down, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Michael, we will gather the waters together and cause the dry land to appear. The great waters we will call seas, and the dry land we will call earth. We will form mountains and hills, great rivers and small streams to beautify and give variety to the face of the earth. We will call our labors the Second Day, and return and report.
MICHAEL: We will return and report our labors on the Second Day, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Elohim, we have been down as thou hast commanded, and have gathered the waters together, and have caused the dry lands to appear. The great waters we have called seas, and the dry land we have called earth. We have formed mountains and hills, great rivers, and small streams, to beautify and give variety to the face of the earth; and we have called our labors the Second Day
ELOHIM: It is well.
THIRD DAY
ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, return again to the earth that you have organized. Divide the light from the darkness. Call the light “day”, and the darkness “night.” Cause the lights on the firmament to appear; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. Cause the stars also to appear and give light to the earth, the same as with worlds heretofore created. Call your labors the Third Day, and bring me word.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim. Come Michael, let us return again to the earth that we have organized.
MICHAEL: We will return again, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Michael, we will divide the light from the darkness, and we will call the light “day,” and the darkness “night”. We will cause the lights in the firmament to appear, the greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the night. We will cause the stars also to appear and give light to the earth; the same as with other heretofore created. We will call our labors the Third Day, and return and report.
MICHAEL: We will return and report our labors of the Third Day, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Elohim, we have been down done as thou hast commanded, and have divided the light from the darkness, and have called the light “day” and the darkness “night”. We have caused the lights in the firmament to appear; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. We have caused the stars also to appear and give light to the earth, the same as with worlds heretofore created. We have called our labors the Third Day.
ELOHIM: It is well.
FOURTH DAY
ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, return again. place seeds of all kinds in the earth that they may spring forth as grass, flowers, shrubbery, trees, and all manner of vegetation; each bearing seed in itself after its own kind, as on the world we have heretofore created. Call your labors the Fourth day, and bring me word.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim. Come Michael, let us go down.
MICHAEL: We will go down, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Michael, we will place seeds of all kinds in the earth that they may spring forth as grass flowers, shrubbery, trees, and all manner of vegetation; each bearing seed in itself after its own kind, as on the worlds we have heretofore created. We will call our labors the Fourth Day, and return and report.
MICHAEL: We will return and report our labors of the Fourth Day, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Elohim, we have been down as thou hast commanded, and have placed seeds of all kinds in the earth that they may spring forth as grass, flowers, shrubbery, trees, and all manner of vegetation; each bearing seed in itself, after its own kind, as on the worlds we have heretofore created; and we have called our labors the Fourth Day.
ELOHIM: It is well.
FIFTH DAY
ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, now that the earth is formed, divided and beautified, and vegetation is growing thereon, return and place beasts upon the land: the elephant, the lion, the tiger, the bear, the horse, and all other kinds of animals; fowls in the air in all their varieties, fishes of all kinds in the waters, and insects and all manner of animal life upon the earth. Command the beasts, the fowls, the fishes, the insects, all creeping things, and other forms of animal life to multiply in their respective elements, each after its kind, and every kind of vegetation to multiply it its sphere, that every form of life may fill the measure of its creation, and have joy therein. Call your labors the Fifth Day, and bring me word.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim. Come Michael, let us go down.
MICHAEL: We will go down, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Michael, now that the earth is formed, divided and beautified, and vegetation is growing thereon, we will place all beasts upon the land: the elephant, the lion, the tiger, the bear, the horse, and all other kinds of animals; fowls in the air in all their varieties, fishes of all kinds in the waters, and insects and all manner of animal life upon the earth. We will command the beasts, the fowls, the fishes, the insects, all creeping things, and other forms of animal life to multiply in their respective elements, each after its kind, and every kind of vegetation to multiply in its sphere, that every form of life may fill the measure of its creation, and have joy therein. We will call our labors the Fifth Day, and return and report.
MICHAEL: It is well, Jehovah. Now that the earth is formed, divided an beautified with vegetation growing thereon, and provided with animal, it is glorious and beautiful.
JEHOVAH: It is, Michael.
MICHAEL: Let us return and report our labors of the Fifth Day, Jehovah.
JEHOVAH: Elohim, we have been down as thou hast commanded; we have placed beasts upon the land: the elephant, the lion, the tiger, the bear, the horse, and all other kinds of animals; in the waters, and insects, and all manner of animal life upon the earth. We have commanded the beasts, the fowls, the fishes, the insects, all creeping things, and other forms of animal life to multiply in their respective elements, each after its kind, and every kind of vegetation to multiply in its sphere, that every form of life may fill the measure of its creation, and have joy therein. We and have called our labors the Fifth Day.
ELOHIM: It is well.
SIXTH DAY
ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, is man found upon the earth?
JEHOVAH: Man is not found on the earth, Elohim.
ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, then let us go down and form man in our own likeness and in our own image, male and female, and put into him his spirit, and let us give him dominion over the beasts, the fishes, and the birds, and make him lord over the earth, and over all things on the face of the earth. We will plant for him a garden, eastward in Eden, and place him them in it to tend and cultivate it, that he may be happy, and have joy therein. We will command him to multiply and replenish the earth, that he they may have joy in his their posterity. We will place before him the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and we will allow Lucifer, our common enemy, whom we have thrust out to tempt him them, and to try him, that he may know by his own experience the good from the evil. If he yields to temptation we will give unto him The Law of Sacrifice, and we will provide a savior for him, as we counseled in the beginning, that man may be brought forth by the power of the redemption and the resurrection, and come again into our presence, and with us partake of Eternal Life and exultation. We will call this the sixth day, and we will rest from our labors for a season. Come, let us go down.
JEHOVAH: We will go down, Elohim.
The film now shows a scene of a lush, tropical area. A thick mist rises from the earth.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, see the earth that we have formed. There is no man to till and take care of it. We are here to form man in our own likeness and in our own image.
JEHOVAH: We will do so, Elohim.
(The youthful body of Adam who lies in a comatose state, is shown from the shoulders up.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, man is now organized, and we will put into him his spirit, the breath of life, that he may become a living soul.
(Light shines on Adam’s face, and his chest expands as he begins to breathe. He stirs, as if awakening.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, is it good for man to be alone?
JEHOVAH: It is not good for man to be alone, Elohim.
ELOHIM: We will cause a deep sleep to come upon this man whom we have formed, and we will take from his side a rib from which we will form a woman to be a companion and helpmeet for him.
(Adam lays his head upon the ground as he looses consciousness.)
NARRATOR: Brethren and sisters, this is Michael, who helped form the earth. When he awakens from the sleep which Elohim and Jehovah have caused to come upon him, he will be known as Adam, and having forgotten all, will have become a little child. Brethren, close your eyes as if you were asleep.
(All male patrons in the room close their eyes.)
ELOHIM: Adam, awake and arise.
(Adam obeys the command, and is shown with foliage in front of him which conceals his body from view. The youthful Adam appears to be in his 20′s, is in good physical condition, and is clean shaven.)
NARRATOR: All the brethren will please arise.
(The male patrons open their eyes and rise from their seats. An attractive, youthful Eve enters the scene and stands beside Adam. They are both shown from the shoulders up.)
ELOHIM: Adam, here is a woman whom we have formed and whom we give unto you to be a companion and helpmeet for you. What will you call her?
ADAM:: Eve.
(For the first time, the Gods, Elohim and Jehovah, are shown. They are two bearded, luminescent, glorious personages, clothed in flowing white robes. They appear standing in mid air above and in front of Adam and Eve, and are surrounded by a radiant aura of silvery-white light.)
ELOHIM: Why will you call her Eve?
ADAM:: Because she is the mother of all living.
ELOHIM: That is right, Adam; because she is the mother of all living. Adam, we have organized for you this earth, and have planted a garden, eastward in Eden. We will place you in the garden and will there command you and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity. Jehovah, introduce Adam into the garden which we have prepared for him.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim.
NARRATOR: We now go with Adam and Eve into the garden. The brethren will now be seated.
(As the male patrons sit down Adam and Eve are shown turning to follow Jehovah into the garden. The scene quickly changes to the garden.)
ELOHIM: Adam, we have created for you this earth, and have placed upon it all kinds of vegetation and animal life. We have commanded all these to multiply in their own sphere and element. We give you dominion over all these things, and make you, Lord over the whole earth, and all things on the face thereof. We now command you to multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity. We have also planted for you this garden, wherein we have placed all manner of fruits, flowers, and vegetation. Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil thou shalt not eat; nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee. But, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Adam, remember this commandment which we have given unto you. Now go to, dress this garden, take good care of it, be happy and have joy therein. We shall go away, but we shall visit you again and give you further instructions.
To be continued later
posted September 6, 2007 at 3:51 pm
TEMPLE ENDOWMENT CEREMONY CONTINUED
Pre 1990 edition
(The scene changes, and it is understood that the Gods have again ascended. The following scene occurs in the garden, and no indication given as to how much time has passed since the Gods’ departure. Lucifer, the devil, is shown standing nonchalantly observing Adam, and is clad in black and red robes; also wearing a square black apron tied to his waist. Though youthful, Lucifer appears perhaps a few years older than Adam, and wears a beard and mustache, His speech is fluid, persuasive, and without hesitation.)
LUCIFER: Well, Adam, you have a new world here.
ADAM: A new world?
LUCIFER: Yes, a new world, patterned after the old one where we used to live.
ADAM: I know nothing about any other world.
LUCIFER: Oh, I see, your eyes are not yet opened. You have forgotten everything. You must eat some of the fruit of this tree.
(Lucifer plucks two pieces of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and presents it to Adam.)
LUCIFER: Adam, here is some of the fruit of that tree. It will make you wise.
ADAM: I will not partake of that fruit. Father told me that in the day I should partake of it I should surely die.
LUCIFER: You shall not surely die but shall be as the Gods, knowing good and evil.
ADAM: I will not partake of it.
LUCIFER: Oh you will not? Well, we shall see.
(Adam leaves, and Lucifer walks over to Eve, who is tending flowers.)
LUCIFER: Eve, here is some of the fruit of that tree. It will make you wise. It is delicious to the taste and very desirable.
EVE: Who are you?
LUCIFER: I am your brother.
EVE: You, my brother, and come here to persuade me to disobey Father?
LUCIFER: I have said nothing about Father. I want you to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that your eyes may be opened, for that is the way Father gained his knowledge. You must eat of this fruit so as to comprehend that everything has its opposite: good and evil, virtue and vice, light and darkness, health and sickness, pleasure and pain; and thus your eyes will be opened and you will have knowledge.
EVE: Is there no other way?
LUCIFER: There is no other way.
EVE: Then I will partake.
(Eve takes the fruit from Lucifer, and bites it. Lucifer approves and places the other piece in her hand, which he closes around it and pats gently.)
LUCIFER: There, now go and get Adam to partake.
Eve approaches Adam, fruit in hand, and presents it to him with a persuasive tone of voice.)
EVE: Adam, here is some of the fruit of that tree. It is delicious to the taste and very desirable.
ADAM: Eve, do you know what fruit that is?
EVE: Yes, it is the fruit if the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
ADAM: I cannot partake of it. Do you not know that Father commanded us not to partake of the fruit of that tree?
EVE: Do you intend to obey all of Father’s commandments?
ADAM: Yes, all of them.
EVE: Do you not recollect that Father commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth? I have partaken of this fruit and by so doing shall be cast out, and you will be left a lone man in the Garden of Eden.
ADAM: Eve, I see that this must be so. I will partake that man may be.
(Adam takes a bite, and Lucifer walks to their side with a look of approval.)
LUCIFER: That is right.
EVE: It is better for us to pass through sorrow that we may know the good from the evil.
EVE: I know thee now. Thou art Lucifer, he who was cast out of Father’s presence for rebellion.
LUCIFER: Yes, you are beginning to see already.
ADAM: What is that apron you have on?
LUCIFER: It is an emblem of my power and Priesthoods.
ADAM: Priesthoods?
LUCIFER: Yes, Priesthoods.
ADAM: I am looking for Father to come down to give us further instructions.
LUCIFER: Oh, you are looking for Father to come down, are you?
(The Gods’ voices are suddenly heard in the garden, reverberating through the air.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, we promised Adam that we would visit him and give him further instructions. Come, let us go down.
JEHOVAH: We will go down, Elohim.
ADAM:: I hear their voices, they are coming.
LUCIFER:: See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick! Hide!
ADAM:: Come, let us hide.
NARRATOR: Brethren and sisters, put on your aprons.
(The film pauses temporarily while the patrons remove their fig-leave aprons from the bundles which have been resting on their laps. All patrons tie the aprons on around their waists. When the film resumes, the Gods have once again descended, represented as before.)
ELOHIM: Adam … Adam! … Adam!! Where art thou?
ADAM:: I heard thy voice and hid myself, because I was naked.
ELOHIM: Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, of which we commanded thee not to partake?
ADAM:: The woman thou gavest me, and commanded that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree, and I did eat.
ELOHIM: Eve, what is this that thou hast done?
EVE: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
ELOHIM: Lucifer, what hast thou been doing here?
LUCIFER:: I have been doing that which has been done in other worlds.
ELOHIM: What is that?
LUCIFER:: I have been giving some of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to them.
ELOHIM: Lucifer, because thou hast done this, thou shalt be cursed above all the beasts of the field. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
LUCIFER:: If thou cursest me for doing the same thing which has been done in other worlds, I will take the spirits that follow me, and they shall possess the bodies thou createst for Adam and Eve!
ELOHIM: I will place enmity between thee and the seed of the woman. Thou mayest have power to bruise his heal, but he shall have power to crush thy head.
LUCIFER:: Then with that enmity I will take the treasure of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies, Popes and priests, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!
ELOHIM: Depart!
(Lucifer looks defiantly at Elohim; he then turns and walks away.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, let cherubim and a flaming sword be placed to guard the way of the Tree of Life, lest Adam put forth his hand, and partake of the fruit thereof, and live forever in his sins.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim.
(Jehovah turns to the side, and stretches his arm toward the tree.)
JEHOVAH: Let cherubim and a flaming sword be placed to guard the way of the Tree of Life, lest Adam put forth his hand and partake of the fruit thereof, and live forever in his sins. It is done, Elohim.
ELOHIM: Eve, because thou hast hearkened to the voice of Satan and hast partaken of the forbidden fruit, and given unto Adam, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Nevertheless, thou mayest be preserved in child-bearing. Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee in righteousness.
Adam, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and hast partaken of the forbidden fruit, the earth shall be cursed for thy sake. Instead of producing fruits and flowers spontaneously, it shall bring forth thorns, thistles, briars, and noxious weeds to afflict and torment man. Any by the sweat of thy face halt thou eat thy bread all the days of thy life, for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
posted September 6, 2007 at 4:11 pm
The Mormon Temple as a Lasting Relic of Polygamy
Ever wonder what today’s Mormon Church would be like if Joseph Smith had never practiced polygamy?
Here’s just a few of the lasting legacies due to Joseph Smith “restoring” the doctrine of Polygamy:
1. Creation of Temple Endowment
In order to keep Smith’s Polygamy a secret, he came up with the temple endowment with its oaths of secrecy. On Wednesday, May 4th, 1842, Joseph Smith initiated nine men into his new inner-circle called the “Holy Order,” the “Quorum,” the “Holy Order of the Holy Priesthood,” or the “Quorum of the Anointed.” For the first year, only a very select few men received the endowment and all were sworn to secrecy based on a death oath. By using a secret ceremony and oaths, Smith was able to keep his practice of polygamy a secret for years. History of the Church Volume 5:1 documents these first meetings and the participants. They were all in Smith’s inner-circle of polygamy. Heber C. Kimball’s journal (1840-45) also describes the introduction of the secret endowment as it relates to polygamy.
2. Closing of Temple Marriages
The practice of closed Temple marriages started with polygamy. Before polygamy in Nauvoo, mormon marriages were performed anywhere. In fact, those performed in the Kirtland Temple were open to non members! Joseph Smith’s own diary lists marriages he performed in the temple, which included non-members as participants and as witnesses. See “The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 1835-1836.” Today, mormons have the tradition of closed temple marriages as a direct legacy of Smith’s attempt to keep polygamy a closely-guarded secret. When he was marrying other men’s wives without their knowledge, he had to have the ceremonies closed and secret.
3. Concept of Eternal Marriage
Until Smith started secretly practicing polygamy, Smith taught that marriage was until death only. That’s right – the doctrine of “together forever” started when he began proposing to other women. He told them that marrying him would “seal” their whole family to him “forever.” But before these proposals, Smith believed and taught that marriage ended at death. In fact, before Nauvoo, his love letters to his first wife Emma reflect his beliefs. In a letter to Emma on May 18th, 1834, Smith signed “…your husband until death.” Writing from Carthage Jail on 4 November 1838, Smith told his wife “If I do not meet you again in this life may God grant that we may somehow meet in heaven.”
4. The term “Celestial Marriage”
Modern mormons think this means monogamous temple marriage. Actually, this term always referred exclusively to plural marriage until the 1890s. Until that time, faithful members married in the temple to only one spouse did not have a celestial marriage! According to ALL Church presidents until 1890, celestial marriage was achieved only by marriage to multiple wives. See 27 Rules of Celestial Marriage, by Apostle Orson Pratt. Also, William Clayton said: “From Joseph Smith I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in celestial glory.” Historical Record, Vol. 6, pp. 225-227.
5. The Practice of “Sealings”
Once again, before polygamy, marriage was just that; marriage. But to take on a second wife, especially one that was already married, a new term needed to be used, so it wouldn’t sound like adultery. Smith chose to call his plural marriages “sealings.” Reference from Emma Hale Smith Biography, page 140: “Simultaneously with the endowment and plural marriage, Joseph formalized a third concept. He explained to Emma (for the first time) that husbands and wives could be married, ‘sealed,’ forever by proper priesthood authority. Understanding this new doctrine led to the next step, which was the marriage of a living husband to several living wives. This doctrine seemed to alleviate some of the repugnance to plural marriage.” This allowed women that already had husbands to say they were married to their first husband, but sealed to Smith. Although women had sex with both Smith and their husbands, they perceived the marriage contract different.
6. Creation and Wearing of Secret Garments
These too, were a result of Smith’s polygamous affairs. It started with the secret circle of men that accepted and practiced his plural wife doctrine. It was his way of setting them apart from monogamous men. It was originally the “uniform” required for men to perform spiritual wifery. Reference from Emma Hale Smith Biography, page 140: “After being involved in the construction and design of the garments, the building of the temple, and hearing about their place in the endowment in the Relief Society (by Smith), why had women not been admitted to the Endowment? Joseph taught that a man must obey God to be worthy of the endowment and that a wife must obey a righteous husband to merit the same reward. Until Emma could be obedient to Joseph (see D&C Sec. 132) and give him plural wives, she could not participate in the endowment ceremonies, yet Smith taught her that the endowment was essential for exaltation.”
Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith condemned Smith for taking off his garments before he went to Carthage Jail. Part of their reason was that it was a sign he had regretted his practice of polygamy. “Smith removed his own endowment “robe” or garment before he went to Carthage Jail and told those with him to do likewise. His nephew Joseph F. Smith later explained, “When Willard Richards was solicited [by Smith] to do the same, he declined, and it seems little less than marvelous that he was preserved without so much as a bullet piercing his garments.”" (The Mormon Hierarchy : Origins of Power, page 146) Michael Quinn references Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives.
7. Design of Modern Temples
Why was the Nauvoo temple so different than the Kirtland temple? Both came from the same unchanging God, right? The Kirtland Temple was actually an expensive church, not an endowment house like the Nauvoo temple. Modern temples with their closed doors, secret ceremonies and odd clothing started in the polygamy-inspired Navuoo temple. In fact, the whole concept of a “Celestial Room” was created to reinforce the doctrine that Smith would be with all of his wives in “heaven” as one big family. The touching experience today when mormon families reunite after the veil in the temple, started out as an experience Smith could use to show how polygamy worked in heaven.
Polygamy (one man married to two or more living wives) may not be practiced today in the church, but its influence on church doctrine and practices still haunts the lives of millions of active members. The temple endowment, garments and oaths of secrecy all have their origins in Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy.
posted September 6, 2007 at 9:37 pm
THE BOOK OF MORMON
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MORMON
UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI
Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.
First English edition published in 1830
THE FIRST BOOK OF NEPHI
HIS REIGN AND MINISTRY
An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah and his four sons, being called, (beginning at the eldest) Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi. The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity and they seek to destroy his life. He taketh three days’ journey into the wilderness with his family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returneth to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings. They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife. They take their families and depart into the wilderness. Their sufferings and afflictions in the wilderness. The course of their travels. They come to the large waters. Nephi’s brethren rebel against him. He confoundeth them, and buildeth a ship. They call the name of the place Bountiful. They cross the large waters into the promised land, and so forth. This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record.
CHAPTER 1
Nephi begins the record of his people—Lehi sees in vision a pillar of fire and reads from a book of prophecy—He praises God, foretells the coming of the Messiah, and prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem—He is persecuted by the Jews. About 600 B.C.
1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.
4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.
5 Wherefore it came to pass that my father, Lehi, as he went forth prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his heart, in behalf of his people.
6 And it came to pass as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly.
7 And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being aovercome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen.
8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.
9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.
10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.
11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.
12 And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord.
13 And he read, saying: Wo, wo, unto Jerusalem, for I have seen thine aabominations! Yea, and many things did my father read concerning bJerusalem—that it should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be ccarried away captive into Babylon.
14 And it came to pass that when my father had read and seen many great and marvelous things, he did exclaim many things unto the Lord; such as: Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy apower, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who bcome unto thee that they shall perish!
15 And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God; for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him.
16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.
17 But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life.
18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.
19 And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.
20 And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.
posted September 6, 2007 at 9:45 pm
1ST NEPHI CHAPTER 2
Lehi takes his family into the wilderness by the Red Sea—They leave their property—Lehi offers a sacrifice to the Lord and teaches his sons to keep the commandments—Laman and Lemuel murmur against their father—Nephi is obedient and prays in faith; the Lord speaks to him, and he is chosen to rule over his brethren. Between 600 and 592 B.C.
1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life.
2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness.
3 And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him.
4 And it came to pass that he *departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.
5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.
6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.
7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.
8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.
9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!
10 And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and bsteadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!
11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.
12 And thus Laman and Lemuel, being the eldest, did murmur against their father. And they did murmur because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them.
13 Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father.
14 And it came to pass that my father did speak unto them in the valley of Lemuel, with power, being filled with the Spirit, until their frames did shake before him. And he did confound them, that they durst not utter against him; wherefore, they did as he commanded them.
15 And my father dwelt in a atent.
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.
17 And I spake unto Sam, making known unto him the things which the Lord had manifested unto me by his Holy Spirit. And it came to pass that he believed in my words.
18 But, behold, Laman and Lemuel would not hearken unto my words; and being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts I cried unto the Lord for them.
19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.
21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.
23 For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also.
24 And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.
* verse 4 (600 B.C.).
posted September 6, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I address this post to Dr. Alfred Mohler,
Dr. Mohler,
Do you endorse the actions of Javden on this weblog in revealing and making a mock of those things that Latter-day Saints hold sacred?
Is this, in your opinion a Christian thing to do?
I would appreciate an answer from you.
Sincerely,
Mike Bennion
posted September 6, 2007 at 10:00 pm
1ST NEPHI CHAPTER 3
Lehi’s sons return to Jerusalem to obtain the plates of brass—Laban refuses to give them up—Nephi exhorts and encourages his brethren—Laban steals their property and attempts to slay them—Laman and Lemuel smite Nephi and are reproved by an angel. Between 600 and 592 B.C.
1 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, returned from speaking with the Lord, to the tent of my father.
2 And it came to pass that he spake unto me, saying: Behold I have dreamed a dream, in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall breturn to Jerusalem.
3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.
4 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban, and seek the records, and bring them down hither into the wilderness.
5 And now, behold thy brothers murmur, saying it is a hard thing which I have required of them; but behold I have not required it of them, but it is a commandment of the Lord.
6 Therefore go, my son, and thou shalt be favored of the Lord, because thou hast anot murmured.
7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.
8 And it came to pass that when my father had heard these words he was exceedingly glad, for he knew that I had been blessed of the Lord.
9 And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.
10 And it came to pass that when we had gone up to the land of Jerusalem, I and my brethren did consult one with another.
11 And we cast lots—who of us should go in unto the house of Laban. And it came to pass that the lot fell upon Laman; and Laman went in unto the house of Laban, and he talked with him as he sat in his house.
12 And he desired of Laban the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, which contained the genealogy of my father.
13 And behold, it came to pass that Laban was angry, and thrust him out from his presence; and he would not that he should have the records. Wherefore, he said unto him: Behold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee.
14 But Laman fled out of his presence, and told the things which Laban had done, unto us. And we began to be exceedingly sorrowful, and my brethren were about to return unto my father in the wilderness.
15 But behold I said unto them that: As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness until we have baccomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us.
16 Wherefore, let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; therefore let us go down to the land of our father’s inheritance, for behold he left gold and silver, and all manner of riches. And all this he hath done because of the commandments of the Lord.
17 For he knew that Jerusalem must be destroyed, because of the wickedness of the people.
18 For behold, they have rejected the words of the prophets. Wherefore, if my father should dwell in the land after he hath been commanded to flee out of the land, behold, he would also perish. Wherefore, it must needs be that he flee out of the land.
19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;
20 And also that we may preserve unto them the words which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been delivered unto them by the Spirit and power of God, since the world began, even down unto this present time.
21 And it came to pass that after this manner of language did I persuade my brethren, that they might be faithful in keeping the commandments of God.
22 And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.
23 And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.
24 And it came to pass that we went in unto Laban, and desired him that he would give unto us the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, for which we would give unto him our gold, and our silver, and all our precious things.
25 And it came to pass that when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it, insomuch that he thrust us out, and sent his servants to slay us, that he might obtain our property.
26 And ait came to pass that we did flee before the servants of Laban, and we were obliged to leave behind our property, and it fell into the hands of Laban.
27 And it came to pass that we fled into the wilderness, and the servants of Laban did not overtake us, and we hid ourselves in the cavity of a rock.
28 And it came to pass that Laman was angry with me, and also with my father; and also was Lemuel, for he hearkened unto the words of Laman. Wherefore Laman and Lemuel did speak many hard words unto us, their younger brothers, and they did smite us even with a rod.
29 And it came to pass as they smote us with a rod, behold, an aangel of the Lord came and stood before them, and he spake unto them, saying: Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands.
30 And after the aangel had spoken unto us, he departed.
31 And after the angel had departed, Laman and Lemuel again began to murmur, saying: How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?
posted September 6, 2007 at 10:18 pm
TEMPLE ENDOWMENT CEREMONY CONTINUED
pre 1990 edition
THE LAW OF OBEDIENCE
ELOHIM: Inasmuch as Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, if she will covenant that from this time forth she will obey your law in the Lord, and will hearken unto your counsel as you hearken unto mine, and if you will covenant that from this time forth you will obey the Law of Elohim, we will give unto you the Law of Obedience and Sacrifice, and we will provide a Savior for you, whereby you may come back into our presence, and with us partake of Eternal Life and exaltation.
EVE: Adam, I now covenant to obey your law of the Lord as you obey our Father.
ADAM:: Elohim, I now covenant with thee that from this time forth I will obey thy law and keep thy commandments.
ELOHIM: It is well, Adam. Jehovah, inasmuch as Adam and Eve have discovered their nakedness, make coats of skins as a covering for them.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim.
(At this point the film pauses and the lights come on.)
NARRATOR: Brethren and sisters the garment which was placed upon you in the washing room is to cover your nakedness and represents the coat of skins spoken of. Anciently it was made of skins. You have received the garment, also your New Name. The officiator will represent Elohim at the Altar. A couple will now come to the altar.
(A pre-selected “Witness Couple” now come forward and kneel at the altar, resting their hands upon it as they face the Officiator. The Officiator pantomimes all movements and gestures as a model for the patrons to follow when directed.)
NARRATOR: Brethren and sisters, this couple at the altar represents all of you as if at the altar. You must consider yourselves as if you were respectively Adam and Eve.
ELOHIM: We will put the sisters under covenant to obey the law of their husbands. Sisters, arise.
(Female patrons stand as instructed.)
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husbands, and abide by his counsel in righteousness of your husband. Each of you bow your head and say “Yes.”
WOMEN: Yes.
ELOHIM: That will do.
(The female patrons now resume their seats.)
ELOHIM: Brethren, Arise.
(Male patrons stand as instructed.)
ELOHIM: Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angles, and these witnesses at this altar that you will obey the law of God, and keep his commandants. Each of you bow your head and say “yes”.
MEN: Yes.
ELOHIM: That will do.
(Male patrons resume their seats.)
THE LAW OF SACRIFICE
ELOHIM: Brethren and sisters, you are about to be put under covenant to obey and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Old and New Testament. This Law of Sacrifice was given to Adam in the garden of Eden, who, when he was driven out of the garden, built an alter on which he offered sacrifices; and after many days, an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: “Why dost thou offer sacrifice unto the Lord?” And Adam said unto him: “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.” And then the angel spake saying: “This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou dost in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent, and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.”
The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ offered up the first fruits of the field, and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.
All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this alter that you will observe and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Old and New Testament, as it has been explained to you. Each of you bow your head and say “yes.”
PATRONS: Yes.
ELOHIM: That will do.
(patrons resume their seats.)
To be continued later
posted September 6, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Javden,
As the night follows the day, so opposition follows truth. The promised “restoration of all things” has witnessed the revival of all past arguments against God’s earthly kingdom along with the spirit of antagonism known to the Saints of all ages past. You can gleefully add your name to that infamous list.
The saving principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are not in flux; they do not change from day to day or from age to age. Those truths that brought salvation to the ancients will bring salvation to those of our day. The manner in which those truths were opposed anciently foretells the manner in which they have been and are opposed in our day. What argument is there that has been brought against the Book of Mormon that cannot be brought against the Bible with the same results? What argument is there that can be brought against Joseph Smith that cannot be brought against Jesus Christ or the ancient prophets and Apostles with the same results?
Can we claim loyalty to the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon, saying that surely God would never command one man to take the life of another? What of Elijah, who killed 400 priests of Baal?
Is there not some irony to be found in that spirit which mocks Joseph Smith in the same language that was used to mock and taunt Jesus the Christ?
Many of Christ’s disciples left him after his bread of life sermon, leading him to ask of the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” It was Peter, as their spokesman, who responded “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 6:66-69). We feel to respond in the ssame manner to the many who would torch the kingdom with the fire of their wrath today and would turn us out of the true fold — “To whom shall we go?” What do they offer us in exchange for priesthood, keys, and sealing power, for a God who speaks, prophets who live, and the promise of everlasting life?
posted September 6, 2007 at 10:25 pm
TEMPLE ENDOWMENT CEREMONY CONTINUED
pre 1990 edition
THE FIRST TOKEN OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD
ELOHIM: We will now give unto you the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Before doing this, however, we desire to impress upon your minds the sacred character of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty, as well as that of all the other tokens of the Holy Priesthood, with their names, signs, and penalties, which you will receive in the temple this day. They are most sacred, and are guarded by solemn covenants and obligations of secrecy to the effect that under no condition, even at the peril of your life, will you ever divulge them, except at a certain place that will be shown you hereafter. The representation of the execution of the penalties indicates different ways in which life may be taken.
The First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood is given by clasping the right hands and placing the joint of the thumb directly over the first knuckle of the hand, in this manner.
(The Officiator, representing Elohim, takes the right hand of the male witness, who represents Adam at the alter, and demonstrates the token. The male witness, who remains kneeling, is obliged to raise his hand above his head while receiving the grip, thus enabling the patrons to view the manner in which the token is to be given.)
ELOHIM: We unto you the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood. We desire all to receive it. All arise.
(As the patrons stand, the Witness Couple returns to their seats. The Officiator and several other temple workers circulate around the room and administer the token to the patrons as they stand at their seats. Male workers attend to the male patrons, female workers to the females. The Witness couple also receives the token at this time. Each patron sits after receiving the token.)
ELOHIM: If any of you have not received this token, you will please raise your hand.
The name of this token is the New Name that you received in the temple today. If any of you have forgotten the New Name, please stand.
The sign is made by bringing the right arm to the square, the palm of the hand to the front, the fingers close together, and the thumb extended.
(The Officiator, again at the altar, demonstrates the sign and penalty as the descriptions are given.)
ELOHIM: This is the sign. The execution of the Penalty is represented by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side.
I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, sign and penalty, and which you will be required to take upon yourselves. If I were receiving my own Endowment today, and had been given the name of “John” as my New Name, I would repeat in my mind these words, after making the sign at the same time representing the execution of the penalty:
I, ______, covenant that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, and sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.
(The Officiator demonstrates the execution of the penalty.)
ELOHIM: All arise.
(All patrons stand.)
ELOHIM: Each of you make the sign of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, by bringing your right arm to the square, the palm of the hand to the front, the fingers together, and the thumb extended. This is the sign. Now, repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty.
I ________, think of the new name, covenant that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name and sign, penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.
That will do. (Patrons sit down.)
ELOHIM: Jehovah, see that Adam is are driven out of this beautiful garden into the lone and dreary world, where he may learn from his own experience to distinguish good from evil.
JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim.
(As the lights are turned down the film presentation continues.)
To be continued later
posted September 6, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
posted September 7, 2007 at 12:34 am
THE BOOK OF ALMA
THE SON OF ALMA
CHAPTER 32
Alma teaches the poor whose afflictions had humbled them—Faith is a hope in that which is not seen which is true—Alma testifies that angels minister to men, women, and children—Alma compares the word unto a seed—It must be planted and nourished—Then it grows into a tree from which the fruit of eternal life is picked. About 74 B.C.
1 And it came to pass that they did go forth, and began to preach the word of God unto the people, entering into their synagogues, and into their houses; yea, and even they did preach the word in their streets.
2 And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—
3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.
4 Now, as Alma was teaching and speaking unto the people upon the hill Onidah, there came a great multitude unto him, who were those of whom we have been speaking, of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world.
5 And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially by our priests; for they have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do?
6 And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word.
7 Therefore he did say no more to the other multitude; but he stretched forth his hand, and cried unto those whom he beheld, who were truly penitent, and said unto them:
8 I behold that ye are lowly in heart; and if so, blessed are ye.
9 Behold thy brother hath said, What shall we do?—for we are cast out of our synagogues, that we cannot worship our God.
10 Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?
11 And moreover, I would ask, do ye suppose that ye must not worship God only once in a week?
12 I say unto you, it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues, that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble.
13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.
14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?
15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.
16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.
17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?
20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.
21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.
23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.
24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—
25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.
38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.
39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.
40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.
41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.
42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.
43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.
posted September 7, 2007 at 3:25 am
Book of Mormon
Ether 12:23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;
24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.
25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: FOOLS MOCK BUT THEY SHALL MOURN; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;
27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all brighteousness.
29 And I, Moroni, having heard these words, was comforted, and said: O Lord, thy righteous will be done, for I know that thou workest unto the children of men according to their faith;
posted September 7, 2007 at 5:10 am
Psalm 1
1Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
posted September 7, 2007 at 5:13 am
Why the need for secret death oaths in the LDS Temple?
I’ll even quote from your own Book of Mormon.
God Doesn’t Need Secrecy or Death Oaths
Book of Mormon, Ether 8:19
“For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.”
Satan Uses Death Oaths, Especially Oaths of Secrecy and Loyalty
Book of Moses 5:29
“And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die;”
Book of Mormon, Helaman 6:21-22
“But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed… they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant…”
Death Oaths Made by All Mormon Temple Patrons Prior to the 1930′s:
ADAM : “We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots.”
ADAM: “All bow your heads and say Yes.”
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.” (All patrons sit down.)
PETER: “The brethren and sisters will now stand, push back the seats, place the robe on the left shoulder, and receive the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood. We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.”
“All bow your heads and say yes.”
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.” (All patrons sit down.)
PETER: “We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.”
“All bow your heads and say yes.”
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.” (All patrons sit down.)
Death Oaths Made by All Mormon Temple Patrons from the 1930′s until April 1990:
Mormon Temple Death Oath #1:
ELOHIM: “All arise.” (All patrons stand.)
ELOHIM: “Each of you make the sign of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, by bringing your right arm to the square, the palm of the hand to the front, the fingers together, and the thumb extended. This is the sign. Now, repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty.”
“I ________, think of the new name, covenant before God, angels and these witnesses that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name and sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.”
(Patrons perform the action as the Officiator guides them.)
“That will do.” (Patrons sit down.)
Mormon Death Oath #2:
PETER: “The sign is made by bringing the right hand in front of you, with the hand in cupping shape, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm being raised to the square. This is the sign. (The officiator demonstrates.) The Execution of the Penalty is represented by placing the right hand on the left breast, drawing the hand quickly across the body, and dropping the hands to the sides. I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, and sign, and penalty, and which you will be required to take upon yourselves.”
PETER: “All arise. (All Patrons stand.) Each of you make the sign of the Second Token of the Aaronic priesthood by bringing the right hand in front of you, with the hand in cupping shape, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm being raised to the square. This is the sign.”
“Now, repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the Executing of the Penalty.”
“I, _________, think of the first given name, solemnly covenant, before God, angels, and these witnesses that I will never reveal the second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, and sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.”
(Patrons perform the action as the Officiator guides them.)
“That will do.” (All patrons sit down.)
Mormon Temple Death Oath #3:
PETER: “All arise. (All patrons stand.) Each of you make the sign of the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood or Sign of the Nail by brining the left hand in front of you with the hand in cupping shape, the left arm forming a square; also by bringing the right hand is also brought forward, the palm down, the fingers close together, the thumb extended, and by placing the thumb over the left hip. This is the sign.”
“Now repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the Execution of the Penalty:”
“I solemnly covenant in the name of the Son that I will never reveal the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood or Sign of the Nail, with its accompanying name,and sign and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.”
(Patrons perform the action as the Officiator guides them.)
“That will do.” (All patrons sit down.)
Even today, Mormon Temple patrons make the oaths of secrecy above, although without the gruesome penalties.
Also, all Mormon Temple Patrons today still make an oath to sacrifice their lives and all they posses for the church:
TEMPLE NARRATOR: (All patrons stand.) “And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.”
“All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this alter that you will observe and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Old and New Testament, as it has been explained to you. Each of you bow your head and say “yes.”"
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.”
ELOHIM: “That will do.” (All patrons sit down.)
TEMPLE NARRATOR: (All patrons stand.) “Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”
Each of you bow your head and say “yes.”
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.”
PETER: “That will do.” (All patrons sit down.)
So why does God need death oaths in the temple covenants?
If these death oaths were necesessary for exhaltation, then why were they removed from the covenants?
Is it any wonder that faithful Mormons will give up everything, including their own family members and integrity to the cause of the church?
It’s likely that death oaths were originally introduced into the endowment ceremony in order to conceal the secret practice of polygamy in Nauvoo.
Why else would God need us to make death oaths of secrecy or loyalty?
posted September 7, 2007 at 5:39 am
Stay True
I compare Joseph Smith to …..Hitler and Stalin…not that Smith killed people physically, but Smith’s teaching have killed millions spiritually in my mind that makes him worse than either one.
posted September 7, 2007 at 7:49 am
Another radical oath which was in the temple ceremony for over 80 years was so potentially dangerous that it was completely removed in 1927.
Just after the turn of the century, Mormon leaders were questioned in court at great length concerning this oath by the United States Government. The investigation produced eye witness accounts which verified that the oath of vengeance against the United States was an obligation received by Temple Mormons in substantially these words:
“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp. 495-496)
-Page Top-
The conclusion of the U.S. Senate committee was: “the obligation hereinbefore set forth is an oath of disloyalty to the Government which the rules of the Mormon Church require, or at least encourage, every member of that organization to take….the fact that the first presidency and twelve apostles retain an obligation of that nature in the ceremonies of the church shows that at heart they are hostile to this nation and disloyal to its Government” (The Reed Smoot Case, vol 4, pp. 496,497)
Even before Joseph Smith’s death, this idea of “vengeance” was encouraged by Joseph Smith himself. The History of the Church gives this statement attributed to Joseph Smith:
“I told Stephen Markham that if I and Hyrum were ever taken again we should be massacred, or I was not a prophet of God. I want Hyrum to live to avenge my blood, but he is determined not to leave me.” (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 546)
The oath of vengeance was of such a violent nature that some early Mormons understood it to mean that they were to personally avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum under certain circumstances.
Under the date of Dec. 6, 1889, Apostle Abraham Cannon recorded the following in his diary:
“…Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in the massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs.” (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Dec. 6, 1889, page 205)
In 1927, after years of criticism, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church finally ordered the complete removal of this dangerous oath.
He didn’t change it because of revelation from God did He.
posted September 7, 2007 at 11:29 am
Javden said;
“Stay True
I compare Joseph Smith to …..Hitler and Stalin…not that Smith killed people physically, but Smith’s teaching have killed millions spiritually in my mind that makes him worse than either one. ”
Posted by: Javden | September 7, 2007 5:39 AM
Janden, you are a mentally sick person. By your above statement you cannot even call yourself a Christian. If anyone is dead spiritually it is you.
Remember the scriptures Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
On this forum I have gone around and around with Chief who also thinks that the Mormons are wrong. But at least Chief is exchanging opinions as a true Christian.
Your level of hate is no different than that of the mid 1800’s.
With you, I am struggling to obey the commandment Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Stan
posted September 7, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Javden,
By your postings you have only shown yourself “dead” to the promptings Holy Ghost.
To any Mormons who read this blog you’re simply profane, blasphemous and of no consequence; to the Orthodox Christians…you are an embarrassment…
The honorable and upright “Christians” of the world not only find your diatribes ill-mannered, irreverent and childish, but also informative of your own insecurities of faith. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, does not seem to find room in your definition of Christianity.
If anything is accomplished by your calloused approach to another’s belief